ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Energy

John Robertson: What (a) recent meetings he has had and (b) meetings he plans to have with representatives of Scottish Power to discuss the energy industry in Scotland.

Michael Moore: I have regular meetings with the energy industry, including with Scottish Power, and will continue to do so, given the sector's importance to the Scottish economy.

John Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He says that he has had these meetings, yet British Gas, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy have said that on no occasion has he ever discussed the price hiking that these companies are undertaking. When will he try to support the people of Scotland by doing something about the price hikes?

Michael Moore: What I recognise is the importance of ensuring that we get a fair deal for consumers, as well as for the shareholders-the companies are concerned about that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ofgem has announced an inquiry into consumer protection and competition in the sector. I expect that to be a very thorough process.

Tom Greatrex: I am glad to see that the Secretary of State was able to get back from Scotland to be here today, despite the cold weather and the travel difficulties. Given that cold weather, and the increase in energy bills that many people have experienced, is he aware of the concern among many of my constituents and many others that the most vulnerable people will struggle to pay their bills, when they should be entitled to be on social tariffs? Will he therefore undertake to convene a summit of the six energy companies to discuss, in particular, what they are doing to ensure that people who should be on social tariffs are on them, and that people in Scotland are not left cold at home this winter?

Michael Moore: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's welcome, and I appreciate, as he will, that many people in Scotland, and indeed in the whole of the United Kingdom, have been struggling to get to work and go about their business today. He rightly focuses on temperature and the fact that this will cause extra difficulty for people, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that we are maintaining the cold weather payments and the winter fuel allowance. I am certainly happy to discuss ideas of getting together with the different energy companies to make sure that they are properly focused on the needs of their customers.

Asylum Seekers

Anas Sarwar: What discussions he has had with the UK Border Agency on the cancellation of its contract with Glasgow city council to provide services to asylum seekers.

Pete Wishart: What recent discussions he has had with the UK Border Agency on the welfare of asylum seekers in Scotland.

David Mundell: The Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with the Home Office on matters relating to asylum seekers. I understand that the UK Border Agency is working closely with support organisations in Glasgow to ensure that there is minimum disruption to those affected by the termination of UKBA's housing contract with Glasgow city council.

Anas Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he think it acceptable that no detailed discussions were held between UKBA and either Ypeople or the Angel Group ahead of the decision to scrap the contract with Glasgow city council, even though they will be made to take responsibility for more than 1,000 asylum seekers in the city? Will he agree to meet representatives of all those involved in the dispute, so that he can make an informed contribution to the Immigration Minister?

David Mundell: I will certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other people who have an interest in this matter. I know that he has already had the opportunity to meet UKBA, and I think that he will share with me the positive view that although the people involved will no longer have a contract with Glasgow city council and will instead have one with another provider, many of them will stay in the same properties and that will minimise disruption.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister even start to understand and appreciate the outrage that exists in Scotland about the treatment of asylum seekers? This is not just about the Glasgow situation, appalling though that is; it is also about the detention of children and the operation of the section 4 card. Will he get down to the UKBA to explain that we look at these issues very differently in Scotland and we expect the UKBA to act accordingly?

David Mundell: I do recognise that there are concerns in Scotland about how the matter in Glasgow was handled, and the Immigration Minister accepts that the correspondence with those affected could have been much better handled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the inquiry that the Scottish Affairs Committee is conducting into relations in Scotland with UKBA.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the Minister's acceptance that the correspondence could have been handled better on the cancellation of the Glasgow contract, because as a result of letters sent out by UKBA, vulnerable people, including many families, were left in a state of extreme anxiety about where they would be living. Can he reassure us that lessons will be learned from this, so that such mistakes are not repeated in future?

David Mundell: Indeed, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. As soon as these issues came to light, the Secretary of State for Scotland was in contact with the Immigration Minister. There is a recognition that the correspondence was inappropriate, and a number of measures have been taken. For example, everyone affected will have at least 14 days' notice if they have to move. Progress has been made. The initial letter was regrettable, but the situation will be better in future.

HIV

David Cairns: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Secretary of State for Health and (b) Scottish Executive on strategies to reduce the incidence of HIV in the UK.

David Mundell: I am in contact with the Secretary of State for Health and the Scottish Government on a range of matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government published their public health White Paper yesterday. As that is taken forward, close attention will be paid to the lessons that can be learned from the Scottish Government HIV action plan.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. On world AIDS day, it is worth reminding ourselves of the rather obvious fact that viruses such as HIV do not respect borders. Will he reassure me that as the Government seek to draw up their sexual health and HIV strategy they will work closely with all the devolved Administrations to ensure a coherent and joined-up approach? That is the only way that we will slow the spread of the virus, which has already claimed far too many lives.

David Mundell: It is indeed appropriate that the hon. Gentleman has asked his question on world AIDS day. He is to be commended for his work as chairman of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS and for his work on the "Halve It" campaign. The Secretary of State will shortly meet the Minister for Public Health in Scotland, Shona Robison, and I shall ensure that this matter is on the agenda.

Iain Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to discuss with the Scottish Government the findings from the eight pilot projects that the Department of Health is running to extend HIV testing in primary care hospitals and community centres?

David Mundell: I am happy to give that undertaking. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) intimated, HIV and AIDS know no borders and the rest of the United Kingdom can learn from what has happened in Scotland, just as Scotland can learn from what is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Economy

David Amess: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the relationship between the UK Government and Scottish Executive with regard to economic policy under the devolution settlement.

Michael Moore: I have had a number of exchanges with the First Minister in recent weeks. Yesterday, the Scotland Bill was introduced in this House. If enacted, the Bill will strengthen devolution by giving the Scottish Parliament a financial stake in the Scottish economy while maintaining the economic strength we all desire from being in the United Kingdom.

David Amess: Now that we know that the Scottish nationalist party-[Hon. Members: "National party."] It put Holyrood's tax-raising powers out of commission for two years without telling the Scottish Parliament. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should be made more accountable for their financial management to such an extent that there should be a closer relationship between economic growth and how much money is spent?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes some interesting observations. I can confirm that the Scotland Bill, if enacted, will provide exactly what he asks for. It will empower the Scottish Parliament, increase its financial accountability and secure Scotland's place in the United Kingdom.

Angus Robertson: Where the Scotland Bill makes a real difference to the lives of people in Scotland and to the Scottish economy, it will have the support of the SNP. During the passage of the legislation in this House, will the Secretary of State and his Tory colleagues accept improvements that will deliver additional powers that will give the Scottish economy a competitive advantage?

Michael Moore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's initial comments. As he is aware, the Bill introduced yesterday and the Command Paper that goes with it are the result of the work not just of the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats but of the Labour party and others across Scotland. I hope that we will get proper engagement. I am confident that the measures in the Bill get the balance right for Scotland. They are right for this time and I am sure that they will pass the test of time.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State knows that many of Scotland's leading businessmen and women issued a statement this week, in which they said that there must be
	"real economic levers to help sustain recovery and grow the economy."
	Will the Secretary of State and his Tory colleagues reconsider their plans and consider improvements to the legislation, such as devolving corporation tax to help business grow?

Michael Moore: I listen carefully to a range of opinion from business and elsewhere about the future of Scotland's-

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. I do not know what the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) had for breakfast this morning, but I am not sure that it has had the desired effect.  [ Interruption. ] Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rant at the Government Chief Whip or anybody else. He must calm himself-it is better for his health if he does.

Michael Moore: If I can repeat what I was saying before your intervention, Mr Speaker, I listen carefully to a range of opinion from across business and different sectors of Scottish society. The business community was well represented in the Calman commission, which produced and supported the proposal. We will continue to listen to a range of opinion, but we have no intention of devolving powers over corporation tax.

Alan Reid: In 1997, the Scottish people voted to give the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers, but in a disgraceful and secret decision, the SNP Government gave up those powers. I welcome the Scotland Bill. Will the Secretary of State assure us that those tax-varying powers will remain with the Scottish Parliament and that the Bill will be phrased in such a way that, were the SNP ever elected again, it would not be able to give up those powers in a secret decision?

Michael Moore: As my hon. Friend knows, the consequences of the Scottish Government's decision not to maintain the Scottish variable rate have been debated in the Scottish Parliament in recent days. The fundamental difference between the existing arrangements and what will follow if the Bill is enacted is that the Bill will create a Scottish income tax that sits alongside United Kingdom income tax, and there will be a requirement to set that rate every year. That is a fundamental change, and it will bring the accountability and empowerment that I discussed earlier, which will be a good thing for Scotland.

Ann McKechin: It is shocking that both the UK and Scottish Administrations are failing to prioritise job growth. While there was a slight fall in UK-wide unemployment last month, the jobless total for Scotland continued to increase. The latest figures show that in Campbeltown an astonishing 13 claimants are chasing every available job. Our youngest people are suffering the most, and if Labour wins in 2011, we are committed to continuing the future jobs fund to help them into work. Why is the Secretary of State set on removing that vital support, while at the same time supporting tax cuts for our biggest banks, which are at the root of our economic problems?

Michael Moore: That was an interesting insight into the Opposition's economic policy, although I realise that Opposition Front Benchers are divided on exactly what it should be. I remind the hon. Lady that we are dealing with the consequences of the largest deficit in peacetime history-£155,000 million. We took urgent action to deal with that, which has drawn us back from the danger zone. We will announce proposals in due course on the Work programme which will replace the future jobs fund. We are dedicated to ensuring that we create the conditions for growth and for a private sector-led recovery to deal with the problems that we inherited.

Ann McKechin: Unfortunately, yet again Scotland's youth are not the Secretary of State's priority. His party does not think twice about dancing on the head of a pin. In its autumn edition of "Scottish News Extra", which is turning out to be one of Scotland's better reads, his colleague, the Business Secretary, is described as
	"launching a scathing attack on the previous government's unfair tuition fees which still have to be paid by Scottish students studying elsewhere in the UK. He likened tuition fees to the infamous poll tax."
	Now that his colleague has said that he may abstain on the forthcoming vote to increase tuition fees in England to £9,000, will the Secretary of State confirm whether he will support the increase, whether he will vote against it in support of the 3,000-plus Scottish students who are directly affected, or whether he will be absent again from the vote?

Mr Speaker: Order. In replying, the Secretary of State must bear in mind that we are referring to economic policy rather than higher education policy.

Michael Moore: It is interesting that the hon. Lady interpreted the question by seeking to get away from anything that might focus attention on Labour's record on the economy and on our determination to create the conditions that will get us back to sustainable growth for Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Scotch Whisky

Adam Holloway: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Moore: I regularly have exchanges with the industry and will be meeting the Scotch Whisky Association in the near future.

Adam Holloway: The Prime Minister's recent trade delegation to China succeeded in securing geographical indication of origin status for Scotch whisky. How much will that be worth to the UK trade balance?

Michael Moore: The importance of the Scotch whisky industry, not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom, is shown by the fact that it contributes roughly £4 billion to our economy, £3 billion of which is represented by exports. At the moment our exports to China are very small in comparison with those to the rest of the world. This important new concession-this agreement with the Chinese-which we very much welcome, will ensure that we can grow our exports in China as we have done in the rest of the world.

Brian H Donohoe: I declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on Scotch whisky and spirits. What representations has the Secretary of State made to the Treasury in connection with the imbalance in the tax on whisky?

Michael Moore: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his distinguished position, the industry is well represented in discussions with the Treasury at all times throughout the year, as it was under the previous Administration. I continue to have discussions with my Treasury colleagues on this very important issue, and will continue to do so in the months ahead.

Stewart Hosie: The Secretary of State will know that only yesterday the Scotch Whisky Association said that the Treasury's review on alcohol tax was a missed opportunity. Will he confirm to the House today that he will make specific representations to his Treasury colleagues for fair taxation of all alcoholic drinks based on their alcohol content only, and no other spurious issues?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record of following these issues very carefully. He will have made representations, as has the industry. The review was concluded a few weeks ago and will report in due course. As I said in answer to the earlier question, I will continue to discuss these issues with the Treasury.

Commonwealth Games

Greg Hands: What assessment he has made of the lessons learned from the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth games which could inform his Department's contribution to the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games.

David Mundell: The Commonwealth Games Federation is currently leading a formal review of the Delhi games. The Scottish Government and Glasgow 2014 games partners are participating in that review, and will be seeking to identify the key messages to inform planning for the 2014 games. The Scotland Office will do whatever we can to contribute to a successful games in 2014.

Greg Hands: The Minister will know that one of Delhi's troubles was in attracting the top athletes. What will the UK Government do to ensure that the best from across the Commonwealth come to Glasgow in 2014?

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, most of the responsibilities in respect of the 2014 Commonwealth games are devolved and rest with the organising committee. I have already met the leader of Glasgow city council and assured him that the UK Government will do everything that we can to support a successful games.

Economy

Julian Smith: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on measures to promote economic growth in Scotland.

Michael Moore: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on this issue. In the spending review, the UK Government took decisive action to reduce the inherited record deficit. Along with the June Budget, the spending review has set the conditions to promote a balanced economy and sustainable economic growth for all parts of the UK.

Julian Smith: The Scottish Government used to be very keen on the economic growth achieved by Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure me that, as well as taking measures to promote growth, he will ensure that the First Minister has fiscal responsibility at the top of his agenda?

Michael Moore: All of us are very concerned about what has happened to Ireland in recent months, and our Government have set out some very important steps that we are taking to contribute to the recovery in Ireland and other parts of Europe. We need to ensure Scotland's place within the stability of the United Kingdom. The Scotland Bill, given its First Reading in this House yesterday, will ensure that we give Scotland the tools to achieve that, and I hope that it will be an Act in due course.

Frank Roy: For every job vacancy in Lanarkshire there are 10 people on jobseeker's allowance. Indeed, in Motherwell and Wishaw, that figure rises to 12 or 13. What priority will the Secretary of State give to the Lanarkshire economy to ensure that it gets back on track as quickly as possible?  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations of a noisy character taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear the Secretary of State.

Michael Moore: I recognise the challenges faced by Lanarkshire and other parts of the Scottish economy and by those who are looking for a job. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I visited Lanarkshire recently and met people who are working their way into employment, and students at Motherwell college. We have to keep focused, and we have to put in place the right conditions to ensure that we achieve a sustainable recovery across the country. I believe that the measures we are taking will ensure that that happens.

Robert Smith: The Secretary of State will know from his visit to the north-east of Scotland just how important the region is, not just to the Scottish economy, but to the UK economy as a whole. We received a welcome boost this week with the announcement of the extension of the runway at Aberdeen airport and improvement in that transport link, but will he emphasise to the Scottish Government that all transport links in the north-east need to be improved? They do not need new levers to improve Scotland's economy; they need to use the existing levers, as well.

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our Government here in the United Kingdom are committed to ensuring that we invest in infrastructure that will support growth, and we have produced other support for business that is geared towards growth, but I take his points about the Scottish Government. His points will have been heard, and I am sure that they will form the basis of further discussions between myself and Scottish Ministers.

VAT

Pamela Nash: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on average household outgoings in Scotland of raising the rate of value added tax to 20%.

David Mundell: The VAT rise is part of the Government's credible plan to tackle the largest deficit in peacetime history. Difficult decisions are necessary, but as a consequence we will get our country back on a sustainable economic footing, to the benefit of everyone.

Pamela Nash: Does the Minister not agree that the rise in VAT-the most regressive tax, by his party leader's own admission-will hit the poorest in our society hardest, particularly in Scotland, where incomes are lower and jobs continue to be lost?

David Mundell: What I acknowledge is that the Labour Government left us with a deficit £12 billion larger than they had told us, and that if we do not tackle that deficit everyone in Scotland will be worse off.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. This sort of noise is very discourteous. I want to hear Fiona O'Donnell.

Fiona O'Donnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The voluntary sector in Scotland plays a vital role in supporting some of our most vulnerable families. The increase in VAT will cost Scotland's voluntary sector dearly. What is the Minister actually doing to support that sector, so that it can deliver his vision of a big society?

David Mundell: This Government are committed to supporting the voluntary sector in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, but the hon. Lady should tell people in that sector and elsewhere in Scotland that the rise in VAT is a consequence of her party's Government's overspending.

MOD Hospital Unit

Katy Clark: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on commissioning a Ministry of Defence hospital unit in Scotland.

David Mundell: Although there are currently no plans to extend the existing network of Ministry of Defence hospital units, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government recognise the importance of maintaining world-class medical services for our armed forces in the UK.

Katy Clark: Despite the increase in the number of injured coming back, we have no MOD hospital unit in Scotland. Organisations such as the Royal British Legion Scotland believe that there should be one. Will he meet the Royal British Legion Scotland, myself and any interested colleagues to discuss the matter?

David Mundell: Indeed, I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and any colleagues. It is important to say, though, that many military personnel are treated extremely well in non-military hospitals in Scotland, where they are closer to their friends and family.

Employment

Ian Davidson: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Moore: In recent months, the numbers in employment have been rising in Scotland, though overall labour market trends remain mixed. This Government will continue to create the conditions to foster sustainable and balanced economic growth.

Ian Davidson: What steps are the Government taking to ensure that unemployment in Scotland does not rise to the level in the Republic of Ireland-part of the circle of misery? Does he agree with me that a small country and bad banks result in misery for working people?

Michael Moore: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that Scotland benefits hugely from being part of the United Kingdom, and under our proposals set out in the Scotland Bill, it will firmly stay within the United Kingdom.

Eleanor Laing: Does the Secretary of State agree that current levels of unemployment in Scotland are the fault of 13 years of mismanagement by the previous Labour Government and that the people of Scotland need to back this coalition Government to give Scotland a chance again?

Michael Moore: Since this Government came to office, they have taken decisive action to tackle the issues that we inherited-a record deficit of £155,000 million. We have pulled Britain back from the danger zone, we are setting out the conditions for sustainable economic growth, and that is the right way for this country.

Economy

Mel Stride: What recent estimate he has made of levels of economic growth and inward investment in Scotland.

Michael Moore: The latest official statistics show strong economic growth in Scotland in the second quarter of this year. We are determined to ensure that Scotland will benefit as the Government tackle the deficit to secure growth, and provide the confidence that businesses and individuals need to invest.

Mel Stride: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether those figures support the claim made by the last Labour Secretary of State for Scotland that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be a "kamikaze" Prime Minister who would "plunge" Scotland "back into recession"?

Michael Moore: Funnily enough, I completely disagree with that assessment. I am pleased to say that not only has the Prime Minister led the Government's efforts to get us away from the danger zone that the economy was in, but he has set out a constitutional path for Scotland that will enhance its economic growth and keep it within the United Kingdom.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Margaret Curran: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 December.

David Cameron: This morning I returned from Zurich, where I have been meeting decision makers, aiming to convince them of what a brilliant World cup England could host in 2018. On my return, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Margaret Curran: May I give the Prime Minister Glasgow's best wishes in the bid for England? I mean that most sincerely.
	In a recent Lib Dem leaflet in Scotland, the Business Secretary compares tuition fees to the poll tax. Is it acceptable for the Business Secretary to say one thing in the House and, when campaigning for votes in Scotland, to condemn that policy?

David Cameron: I thank the hon. Lady for what she says about the England 2018 World cup. I know she would never mislead the House, so I know that what she said was utterly sincere, and I am sure it is shared by Members, whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent.
	On tuition fees, let us look at the system that we are introducing. Under the new system, nobody pays anything up front. Every single student will pay less per month than they do currently. Half a million students will benefit from the increase in maintenance loans. It is time we started looking at the substance of the issue, rather than just the process.

Caroline Dinenage: The Prime Minister explained how he is shuttling between London and Zurich in support of England's World cup bid. Can he update the House on how that bid is progressing, please?

David Cameron: I am grateful for that question. England 2018 has a very strong bid. With regard to the technical aspects, we have the stadiums, the facilities and the transport networks. We have the enthusiasm in our country for football and we can put on an absolutely first-class World cup. I know that many people will ask, "Are you spending too much time on something that might not succeed?" I would say, "If you don't get on to the pitch, you have no chance of winning." We should all get behind the bid.

Edward Miliband: I start by wishing the Prime Minister well as he plays his part in efforts to secure England's bid for the 2018 World cup. As he says, ours is a fantastic bid and all of us will be hoping for a successful outcome tomorrow.
	We note that the Deputy Prime Minister is away on official business, and left the country before the tuition fees vote, but of course we understand that he had urgent business to attend to in Kazakhstan and we wish him well in that.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on Monday was hailed as a great sign of success by the Chancellor, but I want to test out what it will mean for families up and down the country. The Prime Minister has been telling us for months that under his plans unemployment will fall next year, but on Monday the OBR said that unemployment would rise next year. Can he explain why that is the case?

David Cameron: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the England 2018 bid. I know that the former Prime Minister worked extremely hard on it, and I know that there is cross-party support for it. We need to maintain that as we go into the vital last 48 hours.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the OBR forecast, which the Chancellor announced on Monday. Let me stress again that these are independent forecasts, published for the first time independently, and not interfered with by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. On unemployment, what the Office for Budget Responsibility found is that unemployment this year will be lower than previously forecast. It has not altered its forecast for unemployment next year, for which it is forecasting a rate of 8%, but it is forecasting increases in employment all the way through the forecast period. Above all, what the forecasts showed is that our policy of trying to cut the deficit and get growth at the same time is working.

Edward Miliband: What the OBR actually shows is that growth will slow next year compared with the forecast, and that is what will mean that unemployment will rise. What the Prime Minister needs to explain is why unemployment will fall next year in the USA, in Germany and in other major industrial countries, but will rise in the United Kingdom. Why is that the case?

David Cameron: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is determined to talk down the economy, but even he will find difficulty in finding depressing statistics in the OBR's report, because, generally speaking, what it reported was good news for the UK economy. It finds, and the last European Commission forecast report found, that average UK growth for the next two years will be higher than in Germany, France, the US, Japan, and the eurozone, or the EU average. It would be more worth while for us to debate across the Dispatch Box how we get the country's growth rate up. What reforms do we make to try to make our economy more efficient? Has he got something to say about that, or is it another blank page?

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister asks how we get the growth of the economy up-absolutely right. What we should not do is put up VAT next year from 4 January and cut public spending by £20 billion. That is why the OBR says that we will have the weakest recovery from recession for 40 years. I come back to my point about unemployment. Can he tell us when, over the five years of the Parliament, unemployment will return to pre-crisis levels? That tests the strength of the recovery. When will it return to the levels before the recession?

David Cameron: We inherited an 8% unemployment rate, and the OBR says that it will be 6% by the end of the Parliament. He asked the question, he gets the answer. Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman of something. At the last election, the Labour party, himself included, said that if we cut £6 billion out of the Budget, it would end in catastrophe for the British economy. He was proved completely and utterly wrong.

Edward Miliband: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard a more complacent answer to a question? Families up and down the country are worried about their jobs and unemployment will rise next year, and all the Prime Minister can say is that it is some kind of rosy scenario. Let us take the rise in VAT, because that is one of the reasons why unemployment will rise next year. Can the Prime Minister tell us what impact that will have on economic growth and jobs next year?

David Cameron: First of all, let me deal with VAT precisely. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said:
	"VAT would have allowed you to pay off a sizeable chunk of the deficit."
	That is the policy that the last Chancellor supported.
	If we had followed over the last six months the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, we would be linked with Portugal, with Ireland-[Hon. Members: "No."] Yes. We would not be standing here today discussing how we will get faster growth and lower unemployment; we would be sitting around discussing how to rescue and bail out Britain.

Edward Miliband: Okay, Mr. Speaker-[[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] You can rewrite history for only so long. Let us be- [ Interruption. ] Let us be absolutely clear about this- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. We are wasting the time of Back-Bench Members. Let us hear the Leader of the Opposition.

Edward Miliband: The deficit was 2.5% of national income before the crisis-the recession-hit all around the world. It went up all around the world; it was a global economic recession. The question is: should we cut too far and too fast, which is what the Prime Minister is doing, so that there are four years of sluggish recovery-the most sluggish recovery from recession in 40 years? Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question? Is this the most sluggish recovery from recession in Britain for the last 40 years? Yes or no?

David Cameron: This is one of the fastest recoveries in Europe, and the point is, if we had followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice we would not be discussing recovery; we would be discussing meltdown. He can have a blank sheet of paper about the future; he cannot have a blank sheet of paper about the past. We know we were left a record budget deficit; we remember "no more boom and bust"; we remember all the things that he was responsible for. I have to say to him that, after all that-and he has been doing the job for the last three months-people are beginning to ask, "When's he going to start?"

Edward Miliband: With that answer, it is no wonder that today we learn that the Foreign Secretary describes this gang as the "children of Thatcher". It sounds just like the 1980s-out of touch with people up and down the country. Why does the Prime Minister not admit that he is complacent about the recovery and complacent about the people who will lose their jobs? And it is they who will pay the price.

David Cameron: Not waving, but drowning. My mother is still with us, so she is able to testify that what the right hon. Gentleman has just claimed is not literally true, but let me say this: I would rather be a child of Thatcher than a son of Brown.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Tobias Ellwood.

Tobias Ellwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The Prime Minister will be aware that British citizens affected by the 7/7 bombings were supported by the criminal injuries compensation scheme. However, when such attacks take place abroad, such as in Bali, Mumbai or Sharm el Sheikh, no such compensation for things such as prosthesis and long-term care exists. Does the Prime Minister agree that any Britons caught up in terrorist attacks deserve our support, no matter where in the world that attack takes place?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that issue. People who are victims of terror, whether at home or overseas, deserve our support, as he says. People might not know, but my hon. Friend's brother was tragically killed in the Bali bombing-that horrific attack that took place some years ago. We are looking at this very difficult issue of trying to make sure that, when we consider criminal injuries compensation and what has been proposed for injuries overseas, we have a fair and reasonable system. The Justice Secretary is looking at that, and we will come forward with proposals.

Lindsay Roy: The Prime Minister's Government are spending £4 billion so that councils can promote wellness, £2 billion on reorganising the NHS, £100 million on electing police commissioners and £2 million on a happiness survey. Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister has lost touch with reality?

David Cameron: No, it does not. Let me take- [ Interruption. ] Generally speaking, I think the hon. Gentleman should cheer up a bit. Let me take the issue of NHS reform. Even with the settlement that we have set out for the NHS, which involves real-terms increases each year, if we stand still with the NHS and keep the current system, we will find it running into very severe problems each and every year. So, it is necessary to reform the NHS, it is necessary to cut out bureaucracy and it is necessary to reduce management costs, so that we have a system where we actually try to create a healthier nation and, therefore, reduce the demands on our NHS. That is what our reforms are all about.

Philip Hollobone: Along with Jamaica, Nigeria and Vietnam, the Irish Republic has one of the largest groups of foreign national prisoners in the UK. Given that we are about to lend it more than £7 billion, could the Irish Republic be persuaded to pay for the incarceration of those people by taking them back to jails in their own country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are looking at how we can transfer prisoners who are foreign nationals from the UK to other countries. Obviously with Ireland the situation is slightly different, because of the long relationship between our countries. The previous Government announced that they would not routinely support the deportation of Irish nationals from the UK; that was announced in February 2007. Since then, there has been a European directive that is helpful, because it makes more automatic the removal of prisoners to other countries. But there is still the specific issue with Ireland, and I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary to look at it to see whether we can do a little better.

Louise Ellman: The Government are cutting their teaching grant to Liverpool university by 30%, to Liverpool John Moores university by 70%, and to Liverpool Hope university by 97%. Is this a policy for closing down opportunity?

David Cameron: No, this is a policy to make sure that we have a strong university sector in this country.  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members can object, but it was the Conservatives and the Labour Government who set up the Browne review. I would recommend that hon. Members read the Browne review, because with the alternative of staying where we are now, we would either have to cut student numbers or find universities struggling. What Browne has come up with is a proper answer for a strong university sector for the future.

Tom Brake: Does the Prime Minister agree that when this Government are devising policy they should look at the evidence of what works in tackling reoffending, substance abuse and youth crime, rather than relying on the tub-thumping, shroud-waving, ambulance-chasing antics that pass for a policy-making process in the Labour party?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The fact is that with the difficulties of the budget deficit and the spending problems that we have, we do not have any choice but to look at the evidence and make sure that what we do works and is cost-effective. I think that we should start with the issue of drug rehabilitation, because if we can reduce drug-related crime and cut those costs we will make very great progress.

Steve Rotheram: Will the Prime Minister carry out an urgent check on the satellite navigation system used in ministerial cars? My concern is that just a few short months ago the Deputy Prime Minister could not be stopped from driving himself from university campus to university campus, but since he has got his chauffeur-driven ministerial car, he has not been seen near a student union. Is the sat-nav broke, or has he simply lost his political direction?

David Cameron: That was a wonderfully involved metaphor. At least the Deputy Prime Minister can make up his mind whether to join a demo or not-the Leader of the Opposition cannot even decide whether to sit on the fence.

Stephen Mosley: Last week the governors of Christleton high school in my constituency made the decision to apply for academy status. However, before they made that decision, they faced a barrage of opposition from trade unions and local Labour party activists. What message would the Prime Minister send to those who seek to undermine much needed reforms of public services in order to fulfil old-fashioned, outdated, left-wing ideology?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The academy movement-just like the city technology colleges before it-has brought greater independence and greater authority to head teachers and has led to an improvement in educational standards. If Labour Members have got any sense, they will not back off from it, and they should tell their friends in the trade union movement to stop objecting to new academies.

Lisa Nandy: I have recently come across workers in Wigan who were forced by gangmasters to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, below the minimum wage, and were threatened and bullied when they complained. Why have the Prime Minister's Government failed to take any action to tackle this issue? Will he join me in supporting the Gangmasters Licensing (Extension to Construction Industry) Bill and help to bring an end to this appalling abuse?

David Cameron: This is a problem, and it is not one that has arisen suddenly under this Government-it has been a problem for many years. There are problems with gangmasters not paying the minimum wage, and we need to make sure that this is properly policed.

David Davies: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Olympics offer a golden opportunity to encourage more disabled people to take part in sport? Would he like to pay tribute to the Welsh Paralympic team, who we hope will be visiting the Welsh Affairs Committee in February? Should my right hon. Friend be available on that day, he would be very welcome to come and give his best regards.

David Cameron: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend says. As to his invitation, as he is an amateur boxer, I should probably say yes immediately. It is great that the Paralympics are returning to their birthplace for London 2012, and I am sure that it will be a great showcase for sporting talent. Obviously, I wish the Welsh team well.

Ian Paisley Jnr: As the happy son of Paisley, may I too wish the Prime Minister well in his bid to bring the World cup to the United Kingdom? Will he support the campaign of the historic town of Ballymena in County Antrim to achieve city status during Her Majesty's jubilee year?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is not only metaphorically, but biologically the son of Paisley-he is on safe ground there. I shall certainly look at the matter that he raises. I know that campaigns for city status can gain great traction. Before I start endorsing every single one, I shall look at what he has said, but I am sure that there is a strong case.

Richard Fuller: The Prime Minister may have noted that the Leader of the Opposition approaches economic questions with the acumen of a novice out of his depth. By the next general election, families in my constituency will each have paid back £21,000 in Government debt. Will the Prime Minister resist Opposition demands to scale back on the deficit-reduction measures?

David Cameron: I will certainly resist those demands. The fact is that we inherited a situation that was completely unsustainable. Not just the Conservative party made that point; the Governor of the Bank of England, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the OECD and the IMF were all saying that the previous Government did not have a proper plan. We needed a plan, we have got a plan and we should stick to that plan.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I wish the Prime Minister well in his efforts in Zurich and hope that we will get the right result tomorrow. There was a great debate in the House yesterday on school sport partnerships and there was consensus that something needed to be done. There was an offer from the shadow Front-Bench team to try to come to an arrangement on the issue. Will he look at it urgently with the Secretary of State for Education? I am sure that we can resolve this matter, because it is important that sport is available to all.

David Cameron: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a very successful Sports Minister in the previous Government. I thank him for his endorsement of the 2018 bid and all that we are doing to win for England.
	The hon. Gentleman's point about school sport is important. I am looking carefully at yesterday's debate. We all have a shared interest: we all want good sport in schools and more competitive sport, and we all have to ensure that money is spent well. Everyone accepts that not every penny was spent well in the past. There is a quite bureaucratic system. The Secretaries of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and for Education are working hard on this issue. We are talking with head teachers to ensure that what we come up with works on the ground. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement soon.

Graham Evans: The plans to link London and Manchester by high-speed rail will bring huge economic benefits to my constituency and the greater north-west. Does the Prime Minister agree that anyone who wants to eliminate inequality between north and south should support High Speed 2?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes the right point in the right way. I understand that there will be difficulties with High Speed 2 in terms of the impact on some hon. Members' constituencies and on some neighbourhoods. However, it is true to say that Governments of all parties for 50 years have tried to deal better with the north-south divide and to bring our country closer together. I profoundly believe that high-speed rail and good transport links are a really good way of making that happen. This measure could succeed where others, frankly, have failed.

Tony Lloyd: The community of Collyhurst in Manchester has waited patiently and stoically with its insecure doors and draughty windows, while it has seen huge regeneration across large parts of Manchester. The Prime Minister will understand the sense of anger and despair in that community last week when the Minister for Housing and Local Government announced that its regeneration will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister for Housing and Local Government meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) in Collyhurst with tenants' representatives to see how the matter can be taken forward?

David Cameron: I will make sure that the Minister for Housing and Local Government does as the hon. Gentleman says. The regional growth fund will be available for investment in those sorts of areas, and the replacement of regional development agencies-the local enterprise partnerships-will, partly because they will be more locally based, have a finer-tuned ear to local problems such as the one that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Chris Heaton-Harris: With the renewed prospect of travel chaos for British Airways passengers, will the Prime Minister condemn the leader of Unite's implied threat to families when he said to them, "Don't go on holiday"?

David Cameron: Opposition Members do not seem to think it is serious that we now have trade union leaders who actually say that there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike. There is such a thing, and those who are bankrolled by the unions ought to speak up about it.

Andrew Gwynne: Every year, about 25,000 people die from thrombosis in hospitals, which is two to three times greater than the number of people who die from hospital-acquired infection, yet many of those deaths are avoidable if hospitals follow the NHS guidance on blood clot risk-assessment. What are the Prime Minister's Government doing to ensure that the UK's No. 1 hospital killer becomes the NHS's No. 1 health priority?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, and I know that he is chair of the all-party group on thrombosis. In answer to his question about what we are going to do, the first thing is to make available more information. It was a freedom of information request by the all-party group that showed that only 14 acute trusts in England were even close to meeting the goals for risk-assessing patients submitted to hospital for the dangers of thrombosis and blood clots. He is right, and the best thing that we can do is provide more information. That will help us to ensure that hospitals are coming up to the mark.

Stephen Williams: The Prime Minister will be aware, I am sure, that today is world AIDS day. What are the coalition Government doing to ensure that the tide of HIV is stemmed both at home and abroad?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue, and to say that we need to look at what is happening both at home and abroad. Abroad, the biggest decision was to maintain the commitment to 0.7% of gross national income going to our aid budget, and we make a very big contribution out of that budget to the battle against AIDS globally and to ensuring that antiretroviral drugs are made available. We also have to look at home, where there are worrying signs of infection rates that are still extremely high. We need to get the message out today and on other days about the importance of safe sex and the precautions that people should take.

Grahame Morris: I have just got back from a visit to Israel and the west bank, and I was shocked to witness with my own eyes 13-year-old Palestinian children in leg irons and manacles in Israeli military prisons. That is one of numerous breaches of the UN charter and of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. Whether or not the Prime Minister is the legitimate son of Thatcher, I am sure that as a father he would join me in condemning that appalling practice, but what will the British Government do to put pressure on the Israeli Government to comply with their obligations under international law and to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people in both the west bank and Gaza?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. Every country should obey the Geneva convention and the other conventions that it has signed, and Israel should be no exception to that. Ministers in the Government I lead raise those issues with Israeli Ministers, as we should, and that is extremely important. The fact is, what we really need is a long-term settlement of the Palestinian issue, and we want a two-state solution. It is very important that we put pressure on both sides at all times to ensure that we make progress. The lack of progress only plays into the hands of the extremists, and we can see that all the moderates in the middle east who are trying to make progress are being undermined by our failure to do better.

Priti Patel: If the Human Rights Act is
	"a glaring example of what is going wrong in our country",
	when will the Government put the human rights of the law-abiding majority above those of dangerous convicted criminals?

David Cameron: It is right that we should be replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. I have personally looked at the matter long and hard and believe that there is no better solution than that. We are committed to starting a process of looking at that to see whether we can remove some of the nonsenses that have grown up over recent years and show that we can have a commitment to proper rights, but they should be written down here in this country.

Eric Joyce: The Government have announced an injection of £50 million of new money into the interim cancer drugs fund. Can the Prime Minister say whether there will be Barnett consequentials for Scotland, because that is new money?

David Cameron: We have not made any changes to the Barnett formula, so if that is Barnett-able, as it were, there will be consequentials, and if it is not, there will not be.

Bob Russell: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a war widow has to pay income tax on her war widow's pension?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. We need to look at all those sorts of issues under the work that we are doing on the military covenant-there are very complicated issues of pensions and interaction with taxes. I do not want to give a flip answer from the Dispatch Box; we have a proper process of looking at the military covenant, which is the right way to do things.

Caroline Lucas: Climate finance will be critical at the ongoing climate summit at Cancun. Although I welcome the fact that the Government have pledged £2.9 billion to the global climate fund, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future money pledge will be additional to existing aid budgets, and can he say what further innovative funding mechanisms he plans to employ to deliver the UK's share of the annual $100 billion pledged at Copenhagen?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. Although Cancun will not achieve the binding global agreement that we want, it can make important steps towards that, so we can stay on track. On climate finance, first, we will stick to what was set out previously on the limit in the aid budget for money used for climate change purposes, although there are very real connections between climate change and poverty; and secondly, there is a commitment, which we will keep to, of £2.9 billion for climate change finance. Britain is a leader on that, but as she said, we must look at innovative ways of levering in more money from other parts of the world, including-frankly-from some fast-growing areas which, when Kyoto was first thought of, were very underdeveloped and are now fast-developing countries. We need to help them, but the finance should not flow only from us.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the Prime Minister have urgent talks with the Leader of the House and the Business Secretary on introducing legislation for a national regulator or ombudsman for supermarkets before more suppliers are decimated by their conduct?

David Cameron: We have new arrangements in terms of ensuring that supermarkets treat farmers fairly. All of us as constituency MPs have heard stories about supermarkets behaving very aggressively towards farmers, and it is right that there is a proper way of trying to police that independently, so that our farmers get a fair deal for the food that they produce.

Point of Order

Chi Onwurah: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to secure advice on an answer that was provided to me yesterday during questions to the Attorney-General. In response to my question- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly? It would be helpful if I could hear the point of order from the hon. Lady-I might then be in a position to respond to it.

Chi Onwurah: I asked the Solicitor-General about the UK's failure to sign up to the proposed EU directive on preventing and combating the trafficking of human beings. He said that the UK was a signatory, and repeated that in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). However, that is not the case: the UK has opted out of the proposed directive. Could you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what is the best way for the Solicitor-General to correct his mistake?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer to her question is that the best way for a mistake to be corrected is for the Minister, if he has made a mistake, to correct it. We are about to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.

Edward Garnier: There was a degree of confusion; the hon. Lady's question was too general. I answered the question correctly. There are two European directives, one of which is signed, and one of which is not, hence the confusion. The former right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, now Lord Reid, signed on behalf of the Government the European directive to which I referred in my answer yesterday. The hon. Lady may have referred to a different directive that has not yet been signed, so we were both right and we were both wrong.

Mr Speaker: I do not want in any sense to treat this matter with levity, but I hope the Solicitor-General will understand if I say that that absolutely ingenious response is proof of the argument that no reply from a lawyer is ever simple.

Edward Garnier: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Lady has put her view very fairly and squarely on the record. We will leave it there for today. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and indeed to the Solicitor-General.

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill  (Standing Order No.  23 )

Alison McGovern: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to broaden the scope of the general duty of library authorities so as to include a duty to provide related cultural facilities alongside the library service; and for connected purposes.
	At a time of global economic turmoil, it may seem strange to some to want to talk about culture. However, I would like to quote in favour of doing so one of this country's finest economists, Maynard Keynes. On the publication of the first annual report of the Arts Council in 1945, he said:
	"The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied...by our real problems-the problems of life and of human relations, of creation".
	He was right about that. The economic problems that we face are real, many and serious; however, culture and its role in our towns and cities is highly important. I want to raise the matter in my ten-minute rule Bill, in order to put on record my concerns about what could happen to culture in some of our towns, cities and counties in Britain.
	There is real fear out there that there could be not just cuts in the arts sector-everybody appreciates that there will be cuts and that the cultural sector will need to bear its share of efficiencies-but the total withdrawal by some local authorities from providing cultural services. I give the example of Somerset, which recently cut all 160,000 of its direct grants to arts and cultural bodies, while Bedfordshire looks set no longer to fund its music service. I draw on my own experience as a councillor in the London borough of Southwark, where I had to watch the local authority close the only children's museum in London. That showed me the importance of ensuring that local authorities continue to prioritise culture.
	Of course local funding choices are important. I would not dream of telling local authorities what to do-by and large. The Government's role in giving local authorities enough funding will have a massive part to play in determining whether they can provide decent cultural services. Nor do I want to be prescriptive. I am not introducing my Bill in order to tell local authorities that one kind of culture is good for them. Diversity in the cultural services provided by our local authorities is a truly good thing. In my experience, great local authorities lead on culture in places as diverse as Kent, Merseyside-my part of the world-and Leicester. We have some visionary local authorities. I pay tribute to what they do in ensuring that our towns and cities are places we can be proud of, and where there are public spaces that bring people together to share in their history and heritage.
	The reason for my suggestion is to start a debate. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 gives the Culture Secretary an important role. It enables the Culture Secretary, if they feel it necessary, to say to a local authority, "You're in danger of not providing sufficient library services. I want you to stop with those plans. They're not good enough for the people in your area. They need a library service that provides public education"-and for a very good reason. My argument is that this public education role should be extended to the wider cultural service. There are lots of people in local authorities up and down the country who are fearful of what is to come. My question is what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of country where culture is, by and large, for those who already access it? Or do we want to be the kind of country where culture is for everybody and where local authorities fulfil their responsibility in involving people?
	I know that there is a real appetite among local authorities to take on that role. When I put the word out that I was seeking to ask leave to introduce my Bill, I asked people to come forward with examples. I would like to quote Councillor John Warmisham from Salford. I do not know whether Councillor Warmisham agrees with my Bill-he might not-but he told me that the best example of what can be done is that of Salford Quays:
	"First we had the Lowry, which attracted the Imperial War museum in the north, and this laid the foundation for MediaCity. This will give us more jobs than when we had the docks in Salford".
	That, coming from a local councillor, is a powerful example of the good that culture can do.
	There is sometimes a view in the cultural sector that local authorities do not care about cultural services because they do not consider them to be as important as housing or social services, but there are many councillors out there who really do care. I want this Bill to start a debate, to highlight those councils that do great work and to determine whether we need protection in law for the cultural services provided by local authorities. I think that we do; and we at least need to have that discussion.
	In Merseyside, we know-probably better than many other parts of the country-the massive value of culture to places. Of course, this is about the economy, and I must mention the impact that City of Culture '08 had on Liverpool, Merseyside and the wider north-west. I know that people will understand the importance of that, but this is also about the strength of community that was created at the time. People have pointed out to me examples of the work that went on to bring culture not only to Liverpool city centre but to the wider area of Merseyside. I know from experience in my own constituency how empowering it was for the young people and older people in our communities when the cultural services in the local authorities brought them together to discuss their history and their heritage. We need to ask whether that needs some protection in law.
	The 1964 Act has been a vital backstop to our library services at a time when they feel under constant threat of being de-prioritised, driven down and questioned. I have every sympathy with local authority leaders, who are having to make terribly difficult decisions, but the 1964 Act is an important check on what might happen. It ensures that we will never have to face the situation that my own grandfather faced when he was growing up in the inter-war years. He used to go to Liverpool central library and, I confess, he used to steal books because it was not possible to borrow library books for free at that time. The Act is important because it provides a backstop and enables the Government to question any local authority that is proposing to decimate its library services.
	We all know the importance to our own constituencies of the local art gallery, the museum and the local theatre. We have all seen young people from our schools gain confidence from coming into the theatre for their first performance. My reason for introducing the Bill is simply to ask whether we want to be the kind of country in which those services are available to everybody. Do we want the Secretary of State to take responsibility for those services? Such a task need not be prescriptive or demanding, and it would not require a large amount of funding, but it would allow local people to appeal to the Secretary of State and say, "Please stop. We don't want our local cultural services to close." That is important for all of us.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Alison McGovern, Tristram Hunt, Stephen Twigg and David Miliband present the Bill.
	Alison McGovern accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed(Bill 118).

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

[3rd Allocated Day]
	 Further considered in Committee

[Dawn Primarolo  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Early parliamentary general elections

Amendment proposed (24 November): 5, page 2, line 11, leave out from 'Government' to end of line 14. - (Mr Cash.)
	 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 22, page 2, line 12, leave out '14' and insert 'ten working'.
	Amendment 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert-
	'(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.'.
	Amendment 37, page 2, line 14, at end insert-
	'(2B) Where the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of seven days of the motion being passed.
	(2C) On tendering his resignation under subsection (2B), it shall be a duty on the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to appoint as his successor the person who appears to him most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.'.
	Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, at end add-
	'(6A) In this section a "motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" shall be-
	(a) in the terms "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" or
	(b) in the terms "This House has no confidence in the Prime Minister".'.

Mark Harper: Being in this position almost persuaded me of the merits of knives, which at least enable us to conclude debates at approximately the point at which everyone else has spoken.
	I remind the Committee that the amendments deal with the mechanism providing for an early general election following a vote of no confidence, as set out in clause 2(2). Last week, on the second day of this Committee stage, we engaged in a wide-ranging discussion both of the merits of the various amendments and of the Bill. Before I deal with the amendments, let me respond to some of the questions raised by Members last week.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who is present and who speaks for the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, asked a number of questions relating to the constitutional consequences of a vote of no confidence under the Bill. She was particularly concerned about the possibility of a Government's forcing a general election by refusing to act both in accordance with conventions and in the spirit of the Act. She gave the example of a Government who engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves, or who sought to trigger a series of elections close to one another by refusing to resign after an election result.
	If a Prime Minister who would presumably be seeking to be re-elected in a subsequent election engaged in such constitutional shenanigans, he or she would first suffer a political penalty at that election. If a Prime Minister behaved in an absolutely unconstitutional fashion, there would always be the ultimate long stop: Her Majesty the Queen could dismiss the said Prime Minister. That is the ultimate check and balance in our system. Clearly it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances, but it is the position that would obtain if our unwritten or other conventions were breached in a really appalling fashion.

Richard Shepherd: By what constitutional authority does the Minister cite the extraordinary proposition that the long stop of the constitution is that the Queen may dismiss a Prime Minister?

Mark Harper: Her Majesty the Queen appoints the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were to behave in an unconstitutional fashion, the Queen would have the right to dismiss the Prime Minister.

Richard Shepherd: So that is the Minister's new interpretation of a constitution, or of defined practice over the years.

Mark Harper: It is not an invention; it is the constitutional position.

Richard Shepherd: No, it is not.

Mark Harper: Yes, it is.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I cannot think of an example of such a position since the reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that it would arise in a modern constitution.

Mark Harper: I did say that there would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way. They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a vote of confidence in Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that that is extraordinarily unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is most unsatisfactory.

Mark Harper: I am not relying on it for the passage of the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week, on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon. Friend says, theoretical, and extremely unlikely to happen. My point is that if a Prime Minister behaved unconstitutionally in such a theoretical and extremely unlikely way, a mechanism that already exists would be invoked. However, the Government contend-and I agree with my hon. Friend on this-that both sets of circumstances are highly unlikely. It is our contention that the eventuality to which my hon. Friend has referred would not be necessary, because a Prime Minister would not behave in a way that stretched constitutional convention to breaking point.

Chris Bryant: I must say that this is the second very worrying route the Minister has gone down. He is saying that if the Prime Minister were to behave unconstitutionally, the monarch would act. How would the monarch know whether the Prime Minister had acted constitutionally or unconstitutionally?

Mark Harper: I am not setting out anything that is groundbreaking; this is the position that exists now. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that there would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances; indeed, I said as much. I did so because I was referring to a point my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made last week in raising some concerns of the Select Committee's concerns. My view is that those concerns are not well founded because the events they address are extremely unlikely to happen and are only really theoretical in nature, but there is a response to them if they were to happen.

Eleanor Laing: Will my hon. Friend reassure the Committee that it is the Government's intention to fulfil their duty and that of Parliament to protect the Crown from being put in a position where the monarch would ever have to make such an important constitutional decision?

Mark Harper: Absolutely. I can certainly say on behalf of this Government that this Government and this Prime Minister would never wish to put Her Majesty the Queen in such a position. Clearly, I cannot speak for Governments of the future, however.

Bernard Jenkin: I think it would help the Committee if the Minister could cite an academic paper, some judicial text or something else that bears out this notion that Her Majesty the Queen would interfere in politics in the way he is suggesting she would. Can he quote anything?

Mark Harper: The position is that Her Majesty the Queen appoints Prime Ministers and the ultimate constitutional long-stop is that if a Prime Minister behaves in a way that is outwith the constitutional position, the monarch can dismiss the Prime Minister-but that is the long-stop constitutional safeguard in our system.

Bernard Jenkin: Her Majesty would have to take advice on such occasions. From whom would she take advice?

Mark Harper: Her Majesty would, indeed, take advice from, for example her Privy Council and her other legal advisers.

Chris Bryant: Let us be absolutely clear: as I understand it, the Minister is saying that if the Prime Minister were "unconstitutionally"-to borrow the Minister's word-to engineer a motion of no confidence in himself, for instance by tabling a motion of confidence in himself and urging his supporters to abstain, the monarch would sack him.

Mark Harper: I am not setting out particular scenarios. I was making the point that we can set out some theoretical propositions that have not happened and that we think are extremely unlikely to happen. I was simply setting out that if such a theoretical and unlikely event, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, were to happen there is a constitutional long-stop. That was all I was saying, and I think the hon. Gentleman is making rather too much of it as it is not a new point.

Peter Soulsby: Although we may well accept that the scenarios we are talking about are unlikely, they are none the less possible, and while they remain possible would it not be desirable for the Government either to accept the Select Committee's amendments or, indeed, to bring forward some of their own to make sure that should such unlikely events occur, there is a clear road map for the sovereign to follow?

Mark Harper: The fact is that some of these things can happen under our existing constitutional position; they are not triggered by anything we are providing for in this Bill. Our flexible constitution has worked rather well over the years in dealing with events that have not been thought of in advance, and I see no reason to undertake a rather more significant constitutional rewrite.
	This Bill is intended to do one specific thing, which is remove from the Prime Minister the power to seek a Dissolution of Parliament. It makes the necessary changes to do that, but it does not seek to make changes that are not necessary to do that; it does not seek to go wider than achieving that particular change, and I think that is very sensible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest also asked last week how the Bill strengthened the power of the House to throw out a Government. Giving statutory effect to the vote that could bring about a general election, rather than simply relying on the conventions, strengthens the power of the House. The Bill transfers from the Prime Minister to this House the power to decide whether there will be an early general election. If I remember rightly, my hon. Friend did, however, say that she is broadly supportive of the measures in the Bill, as, I think, is the Select Committee.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked a number of questions last week. He asked whether the Bill should contain a provision to ensure that a motion of no confidence is given precedence so it is debated without delay. He is aware-he mentioned this last week-that there is a convention that the Government find time to debate a motion of no confidence tabled by the official Opposition. That is a long-standing convention, which has been followed by Governments. Also of course, it would always be open to the Opposition to table an amendment to a Government motion, changing it to one of no confidence to ensure that that was debated.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of related points about whether particular votes could be considered motions of no confidence and whether it was appropriate for the Speaker to rule on such matters. I think I am right in saying that he was concerned that the Bill would give too much discretion to the Speaker. The Government do not consider that to be the case. We would expect the Speaker by and large to take a fairly literal approach to clause 2(2). We do not think the Speaker would be left with appreciably more discretion in dealing with this sort of question than he already has, for example under the Parliament Act 1911 when he has to certify whether a Bill is a money Bill. That is a decision he makes; it is for him. It seems to me that that is a sensible amount of discretion for the Speaker to have, although I accept it is on a different issue.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right, of course. In fact, at present Members of the House of Lords are fiercely contesting the Speaker's decision on whether certain Bills are money Bills. My point, however, is that all that that determines is whether or not it can be debated in another Chamber, whereas under this measure it would determine whether or not we had a general election and the Government had fallen. That is a very big decision to be placing in the hands of the Speaker, which heretofore has never been in the hands of the Speaker.

Mark Harper: There are two issues there. I will not dwell on the money Bill issue to any great extent, because if I were to do so you would rule me out of order, Ms Primarolo, but I have read the account of the debate in the other place to which the hon. Gentleman refers and the other place is not challenging the Speaker's ability to rule on whether a Bill is a money Bill. It is simply disagreeing with the consequences of that, and arguing that if something is a money Bill it is perfectly appropriate for the upper House to debate it in Committee and pass amendments to it, recognising that legally those amendments will have no effect if the House of Commons chooses not to take them into account. The upper House is therefore not challenging the Speaker's right to make that decision.
	The hon. Gentleman is also not right to say that this is about the Speaker deciding, effectively, whether to bring down the Government. That would be a decision for the House. The Speaker would have to make a decision about certifying something as a vote of confidence. As we debated last week, it would be extraordinary if the House were debating a motion of confidence-which the Speaker would certify as such-with everybody remaining in ignorance of the fact that it was a motion of no confidence in the Government. I simply do not think that would happen. Everyone would be very well aware of the fact that it was a motion of confidence-that it had that import to it. It would be for the House to vote on the matter, and the Speaker would then certify in a way that means the decision is outside the ambit of the courts.

Mark Durkan: As the Minister just appeared to touch on, under the Bill the Speaker issues the certificate only after the vote has taken place, not before. Therefore, would not the Labour amendment that specifies what is and what is not a vote of confidence be much better in everybody's terms?

Mark Harper: I shall deal with the specific amendments shortly, when I set out why the Government think that they are unnecessary and that their drafting makes them flawed. If the hon. Gentleman does not think I have adequately dealt with his point, he will be able to intervene on me and I will happily take such an intervention. We have debated the fact that there is also a purpose in the Bill's not specifying the exact words in legislation, because such an approach gives the House some necessary flexibility. I will return to that in a moment.
	Let us consider the amendments in order. Amendment 5 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is not able to be here today because he is away on other parliamentary business. He explained that his amendment would remove the 14-day period before an early election was called in the event of the Speaker certifying that the House had passed a vote of no confidence. It is right to say that there would be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to move to an early election when the House determined that we should do so, and the Bill provides for that in clause 2(1). But it is perfectly possible that there may be circumstances within a fixed term in which a legitimate Government could be formed from the composition of the House as it then stood, so it would not be appropriate to insist on an election. Members will have been elected for five years, and they are able to give their approval to a Government formed from within their ranks without the need necessarily to go to the country. The House can decide to do so, because under our proposals if a vote of confidence is lost and no Government can be formed within 14 days who subsequently receive a vote of confidence, a general election would take place. It seems sensible to give the House the opportunity to test whether a Government can be formed.
	My hon. Friend's amendment contained a fundamental misunderstanding about what a Prime Minister should do in the event of a Government losing the confidence of the House. Two things can happen. One possibility, under our current system, is that a Prime Minister remains in office but invites Her Majesty to dissolve the House and call a general election. Thus the Prime Minister does not resign immediately, and that is what happened when the House expressed its lack of confidence in the Government in 1979. Mr Callaghan did not resign when he lost the vote of confidence; he resigned only when he lost the subsequent election. Alternatively, the Prime Minister could resign almost straightaway after losing a vote of confidence, as happened in January 1924 when the Government's motion for the Loyal Address after the Queen's Speech was amended: Prime Minister Baldwin resigned and the Labour Opposition formed a Government. This Bill seeks to encapsulate that double-sided convention.
	At the moment, if a general election has an unclear outcome, the Prime Minister is able to test his support in the House of Commons. If the House then signalled that it did not have confidence in that Government, that Prime Minister would go and a new one could be appointed. Amendment 5 would insist that another general election took place, and if the result of that general election was unclear, we could end up having a succession of general elections. Amendment 5 would force such elections to be held. In countries that have fixed-term Parliaments it is very common for there to be a period of Government formation after a vote of no confidence before an election is triggered. That is what happens in Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden, so we are proposing an approach that has much precedent, which we think is sensible. We cannot ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment, because he is not here and thus unable to do so. However, we urge Members who are here not to insist on it being pressed to a Division.

Bernard Jenkin: I have been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who makes things complicated because he does not text people. He is in Budapest representing the European Scrutiny Committee, but he has suggested that it would be in the interests of the scrutiny of this Bill to press the amendment to a Division, and one or two of us will attempt to do so.

Mark Harper: As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is away on parliamentary business and, as he has perhaps not reached 21st century methods of communication, my words are unlikely to reach him in a timely way. So I can only urge him not to press his amendment to a vote, but I suspect that the decision on that will be for others, not for him.

Chris Bryant: As it happens, I agree with the Minister on this amendment. However, the one area that it will be worth considering on Report is whether it would be sensible to have a motion of confidence on the forming of a new Government after a general election, which should be treated in a slightly different way. Such an approach would address the 1924 situation that he suggests.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which has been raised by others. I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, has said he is keen on the idea of installing Prime Ministers with an explicit vote in the House-he was speaking for himself there, not for the Committee. That would be a further change to our system and, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), we have made the necessary changes in the law to take away the Prime Minister's right to call an early general election, but we have not gone further. I shall think about what the hon. Member for Rhondda said and see whether we think it has merit.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment 22 seeks to replace the 14 days that we set out in the Bill for that Government formation period with a period of 10 working days. He is supportive of a Government formation period, because he would not be attempting to keep one through this amendment were he not. I think he was wanting to understand why we chose the period that we did, using calendar days rather than working days. The reason why we did so was because the calendar day period is fixed and certain, whereas working days are not, as they are dependent on things such as bank holidays.
	Two legitimate concerns are involved here, and they were touched on last week. There is a concern that the number of business days in the 14-day period would be curtailed or that the date of the no confidence vote could mean that the date for the Government formation vote fell on a non-working day. Our view-I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's-is that discussions on Government formation would not stop on weekends and bank holidays; I suspect that they would continue, given that having a Government is probably the most important thing for the country.
	There are two ways around a scenario where the vital 14th day when the vote of confidence is due falls on a day when the House would conventionally not be sitting. The first is to arrange that the no confidence motion be taken on a day that means that the House will be sitting 14 days later. The alternative is for the House simply to sit on what would traditionally have been a non-sitting day. There is nothing to prevent the House from sitting, if it chooses to do so, on a bank holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday. Non-working days are not days when the House cannot sit, even though it does not do so. There are precedents for the House sitting on such days when emergencies have happened. I believe I am right in saying that the House was recalled to sit on a Saturday when the Falkland Islands were invaded by the Argentines. Holding a vote on whether a new Government did or did not have the confidence of the House would be sufficiently important that it would be in order for the House to sit that day, even if it was not a conventional day.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in relation to the Falkland Islands, and I believe that the House has also sat on a Sunday on the demise of the monarch. That is precisely why we did not specify "sitting days" in this amendment; we used the term "working days" because that is the language used throughout the rest of the Bill. We sought to provide a degree of flexibility; otherwise, over Easter, when there are bank holidays on the Friday and the following Monday, there might be a sustained period when the House would find it inconceivable to sit but the Government might, none the less, want to be able to do their business.

Mark Harper: For the purposes of this particular set of motions, the only business that we would be talking about the House undertaking would be holding a vote on whether or not a new Government who had been formed had the confidence of the House. Given the things that the Government are responsible for, it would be important to have a clear Government in place for the financial markets and at difficult times. We know from experience and we can see it from what happens in other countries. Therefore, the Government formation negotiations would want to be concluded and it would benefit the country, the Government and the House for the House to vote on that without inordinate delay. If there were a number of bank holidays or other holidays in the way, that could be dealt with.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks about Good Friday. As I have said, the alternative is that we could arrange things by moving the no confidence vote so that it was 14 days before a sitting day.
	Conventionally, no confidence motions are given time in the House very soon after they are tabled, but as long as the Government were prepared to table such a motion very soon and agreed that with the Opposition, it would not necessarily have to be tabled the next day. I do not think that it is an inordinate problem. We think that it is sensible for there to be a fixed timetable for a Government to be formed so that everyone has some certainty. That is why we picked the time period that we have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke in support of amendments 36 and 37, which are also tabled in the names of other members of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform. Amendment 36 would make the 14 days in a period following a Government defeat a period that would not include periods of Prorogation or Adjournment for more than four days. Although I do not think that this is the intention behind the amendment, its effect would be to permit the 14-day period for Government formation to be prolonged potentially indefinitely if the House was prorogued or adjourned. The Government do not think that that is appropriate. We think that the 14-day period strikes the right balance between giving parties in this House time to discuss and see whether a Government can be formed and not allowing things to go on for so long that the country is plunged into a period of uncertainty. We do not think that amendment 36 is acceptable.
	Amendment 37 provides that a Prime Minister must resign within seven calendar days of losing a vote of no confidence and recommend to the monarch a successor who appears to them to be the person most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House. I think I am right to say-my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest will correct me if I am wrong-that the purpose of the amendment is to avoid a situation in which a Prime Minister who has lost a no confidence vote wishes to remain in power and asks the monarch to prorogue Parliament to avoid an alternative Government receiving a vote of confidence, thereby forcing a general election.

Eleanor Laing: Yes.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend says that that is indeed the purpose of the amendment. However, I think amendment 37 is defective, because it rules out the possibility of what happened in 1979 occurring again. As I have said, Prime Minister Callaghan did not resign as a result of the no confidence motion. He remained in office, asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament and resigned when he lost the subsequent general election. That outcome remains a possibility under the Bill. My hon. Friend's amendment would have meant that he would have been forced to resign before the result of the election was known. I do not think that that would have been a sensible outcome.

Eleanor Laing: I fully appreciate the Minister's point. Amendments 36 and 37 might well be technically defective-in any case, I have no intention of pressing them to a vote, as I said-but the Select Committee's purpose was to ensure that this issue was properly discussed and scrutinised on the Floor of the House. Will the Minister reassure the House that he and his colleagues are satisfied that it would not be possible under the Bill's provisions for the Government to seek indefinite prorogation in order to avoid a vote of confidence and a general election?

Mark Harper: I think I have set out why I do not think that that is likely. As we have heard, there are lots of theoretical possibilities that are very outlandish-I do not propose to rehash the conversations that we had at the beginning of this debate-but the Government do not think that they are realistic risks and that is why we do not think that amendments 36 and 37 are acceptable.
	Let me turn now to the last amendment in this group, amendment 25, which was also tabled by the Opposition. It specifies the wording of motions of no confidence for the purposes of clause 2(2). It aims to remove the discretion of the House over its wording and that of the Speaker in his certifying of a motion of no confidence. The Government recognise that no confidence motions might take different forms, as they do now, but we do not want to remove the flexibility entirely. That raises an issue, which we will come to in the next group of amendments, to do with the House's exclusive cognisance.
	If we try to set out in statute the precise form of a no confidence motion, that could raise the risks to which the Clerk of the House has alluded. We think it is better for the Speaker's certificate to be conclusive and for the Speaker to determine the nature of that certification. As I said when we touched on this matter in debating a previous group of amendments, if there were doubt-I think it unlikely that there would be-about whether what the House was discussing was a motion of no confidence, it would seem to be sensible for the Government, the Opposition and the Speaker to ensure that Members were clear on that point when they were debating it. I cannot believe that there could ever be a debate in this House about a motion of no confidence in the Government in which Members were sitting there completely unaware that they were debating the future of the Government of our country.

Nigel Dodds: Of course, the Minister is right about the reality and the politics of the situation. He should remember, however, that we are talking about a situation in which legislation has been introduced and that legislation is always challengeable in the courts. Once things get into the courts, who knows what will happen regarding the interpretation of the provisions? For the sake of clarity and certainty, what is wrong with setting out the precise terms that must be used so that there can be no doubt? That goes to the issue in amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which sets out provisions for the avoidance of doubt. Surely there is merit in making it absolutely clear and plain.

Mark Harper: I shall not attempt to rush forward to the certification procedure, because we will debate it when we discuss the next group of amendments.
	Let me turn to the specific amendment before the Committee. I do not think amendment 25 achieves the certainty that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) suggests would be desirable. It states that a motion of no confidence "shall be", not "must include", so it is not clear whether the motion would have to consist exclusively of the specified text or whether that text could be part of a motion, such as if it were added to a Government motion by amendment.
	The Opposition's amendment tries to specify the text of the no confidence motion, but does not try to achieve equivalent clarity as regards the motion of confidence that would have to be passed within 14 days by an alternative Government in order to avoid a general election. The amendment is trying to achieve some certainty-that was what the hon. Member for Rhondda said-but I do not think it does. I also do not think it is desirable or appropriate to try to set out the text of the motions in the Bill.
	The Government think that clause 2(2) provides a clear and practical mechanism that gives statutory effect to a vote of no confidence. I have set out the Government's concerns about the amendments and I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press them to a vote.

Richard Shepherd: I should like to press amendment 5 to a vote, with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

The Second Deputy Chairman: The question is, that the amendment be made.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think the Noes have it.

Richard Shepherd: We wanted to press the amendment to a Division, Ms Primarolo.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I need to hear you pressing the amendment, Mr Shepherd. I need you to shout louder for me. I am happy to do it again, but I need to hear the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 498.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: When, after voting, Members remain in the Lobby behind the Speaker's Chair, they need to be quiet; otherwise it is impossible to hear the vote in the Chamber.
	 Amendment proposed: 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert-
	'(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.'.- (Sir Peter Soulsby.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment 6, page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert-
	'(3) Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes and shall not be presented to or questioned in any court of law whatsoever.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 23, page 2, line 17, at end insert-
	'(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1) or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under subsection (1) or (2).'.

Bernard Jenkin: Amendment 6 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who, as I mentioned earlier, is abroad on other House business as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.
	We are at a curious juncture in the Bill and, indeed, in our constitutional history. The background to the amendment is the tension, since time immemorial, between this House's ability to function immune from judicial interference, and the courts, which periodically have sought to limit the extent to which we can continue our business unimpeded by the courts. That was, of course settled-to a degree-in the Bill of Rights in 1789-

Geoffrey Cox: 1689.

Bernard Jenkin: Sorry, 1689. My hon. and learned Friend will keep me up to the mark, because he is much more of a lawyer than I am.
	In recent years, however, the tension between the courts and the independence of this House has been thrown into relief. I remind the Committee of cases such as the one brought by Lord Rees-Mogg for judicial review of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty after this House had passed an Act of Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would like to clarify that the judicial review case brought by my noble kinsman was not in any way to challenge what had happened in this House. It was to challenge the use by Ministers of the royal prerogative, which is why the judicial review was allowed by the courts.

Bernard Jenkin: I stand corrected-again. I fear that that may occur rather often during my presentation. The case relating to the Hunting Act 2004 was certainly an attempt to impede the free functioning of Parliament in its judicial function. In addition, an attempt was made to judicially review the lack of a referendum on what was then the Lisbon treaty. There are other examples of that tension, not least over the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I believe that only today, in connection with another matter, are the limits of the courts being resolved.
	The present situation begs for something that many have recommended for some time: that this Parliament should have a privilege Act to delineate clearly the immunities of Parliament in relation to the functioning of the courts, but we are in an even more tense situation because we are arranging our constitution in other areas that question the very sovereignty of the House. We now have a Supreme Court and it is widely known that many jurists who serve at various levels of the judiciary take differing views of the notions of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege. There was recently a case concerning the possible effective expulsion of an hon. Member as a result of a judicial decision. I do not comment on its merits as it is still sub judice. I merely advert to the fact that it represents another testing of the boundaries between the courts and Parliament.
	We are told not to worry-the Bill's provisions are immune from the courts, and nobody is going to interfere in what we decide is a Speaker's certificate, certificating a vote of no confidence that satisfies the majority. When we are blandly and bluntly told that by the Government and at the same time told by the Clerk of the House who has bravely and independently-in his constitutional capacity as an independent guardian of our constitutional arrangements-issued a memorandum, to which I shall refer later, that flatly contradicts the Government's view, we are obliged to take the matter very seriously.
	I cannot think of a precedent, other than the Parliamentary Standards Bill, where a Government flatly refused to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House on a question of the potential justiciability of legislation before the House. The Bill before us is a major change to the constitutional settlement of this country, and it is backed by people in the Government who we know favour a written constitution-an entirely different constitutional settlement. That raises the question whether the Government have got it right when they say that the Clerk's fears are to be disregarded.
	With the indulgence of the Committee, I shall quote rather extensively from the memorandum submitted by the Clerk as written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. He states that the Bill is
	"to make statutory provision for matters which fall within Parliament's exclusive cognizance and which may affect the established privileges of the House of Commons as well as upsetting the essential comity which has been established over a long period between Parliament and the Courts."
	Erskine May makes it clear that "cognizance" refers to the right of both Houses
	"to be the sole judge of their own proceedings, and to settle-or depart from-their own codes of procedure."
	The Clerk is clear in a bald statement in paragraph 12 of his memorandum:
	"The Bill brings the internal proceedings of the House into the ambit of the Courts, albeit indirectly by the route of Speaker's certificates."
	He goes on to explain how that occurs under clause 2(2), which we have already debated. In paragraph 16 he states:
	"The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker's consideration of confidence motions and the House's practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts."
	That should be obvious. We know that Crown prerogative, as exercised by the Prime Minister, is subject to judicial review. We know that statute is subject to judicial review. We know that proceedings in the House and Standing Orders have not hitherto been subject to judicial review or judicial question. The Bill provides a connection between what happens in the House and in the rest of the world. We are providing a bridge of law that brings the courts into the House.

Tristram Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman think, therefore, that the amendment goes far enough? The solution, as the Clerk of the House sees it, is for the Speaker's certificate to be provided for not in statute but under a Standing Order, which would prevent the courts from interfering in the proceedings of the House.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, to which I shall return. The entire Bill could be dealt with through Standing Orders. The only reason we have a Bill is either that a Bill is favoured by those who want to move towards a written constitution-I do not remember that being in anybody's manifesto-

Chris Bryant: Ours.

Bernard Jenkin: There we are. Perhaps that is why the Opposition support the Bill. We have just had a Division in which 400 right hon. and hon. Members were in the No Lobby and only a handful of us in the Aye Lobby. That underlines the curious consensus in favour of certain principles of the Bill. I do not think either of the elected parties in the coalition was in favour of a written constitution- [Interruption.] That is two parties, but the one that won the election certainly did not-

Chris Bryant: To clarify, I think the Liberal Democrats were in favour of a written constitution, and we were in favour of looking at a written constitution.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not remember that being a great issue in the general election, but we are, in effect, creating one of the standard features of a written constitution, thereby tempting the courts to start interfering in the internal workings of the House.

Mark Harper: For the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position is that they are not in favour of moving to what is more accurately said to be a codified constitution. Many of our constitutional principles are, of course, written down, just not in one document. It is not the Government's position to do so. I hope that cheers my hon. Friend up.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for that assurance. The Minister, who in all these debates has shown impeccable manners and tact despite the pressure he is under, should be looking for an alternative way of delivering this part of the coalition agreement, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) alluded.
	The Speaker's decisions will be taken under immense political pressure, as he decides what constitutes a confidence motion, what amendments might be tabled to amend a confidence motion, whether, if carried, that would invalidate the motion, whether the amendment could constitute a motion of confidence, and the consequences of amendments being carried or the motion being carried.
	I quote again from the Clerk's memorandum:
	"As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could be drawn into matters of acute political controversy."
	I respect the fact that many in the House think we should have a Supreme Court like the European Court of Justice in the European Union or the Supreme Court of the United States, which is essentially a political court, but that is a very big constitutional change. We ought to have a royal commission about it, there ought to be debates on the Adjournment about it and the implications of drawing the courts into politics, if that is what we are going to do, ought to be properly explored. The way in which the Supreme Court is appointed to make it accountable for its political judgments is another important question.
	We are importing continental and American-style jurisprudence into our judicial decision making. Some judges are becoming more and more adventurous about how they interpret statute and where they feel entitled to make judicial interpretations, and the Bill invites them to decide when there might be a general election under particular circumstances.

Jesse Norman: Will my hon. Friend distinguish between two things: judicial activism, where there is extraordinarily little evidence that judges in this country are overreaching, although the same is not necessarily true in Europe and in the European Court, and impingement on the prerogatives of Parliaments, which is what the Bill covers? We should be focusing on the latter point.

Bernard Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that point. I refer to judicial activism only because there are champions of judicial activism who would like the courts to be more judicially activist. The Bill creates circumstances whereby we tempt judicial activism, which is contrary to our legal traditions. It increases the danger of the Government's assurances simply not being delivered, or of their not being able to make these assurances with any confidence.
	The Clerk, in his memorandum, specifically says:
	"In the case of Clause 2(3) it would be for the court to determine whether a document issued by the Speaker was a 'certificate' for the purposes of that clause. It is not impossible for a court to take the view that what appeared to be a certificate was not a 'certificate'".
	The memorandum has been considered by the Select Committee, which attempted, in the short time available, to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. It reached two principal conclusions. Paragraph 8 states:
	"The Government needs to respond to the concerns expressed by the Clerk of the House of Commons about the potential impact of clause 2 of the Bill on parliamentary privilege.
	Paragraph 9 states:
	"The purpose of the Bill needs to be achieved without inviting the courts to question aspects of the House's own procedures or the actions of the Speaker, except where this is absolutely unavoidable and clearly justifiable."
	The qualification reflects the fact that on the Committee there was some disagreement about the seriousness of the threat and between those who are in favour of a written constitution and those who are in favour not of a written constitution but of the settlement that relies upon our immunity.
	On whether there are alternative ways of achieving the Bill's intentions without the risk of judicial interference, the Committee noted, in paragraph 38:
	"As the Committee has noted, setting out the requirement in Standing Orders would not be satisfactory because Standing Orders can be amended, suspended or revoked by a single simple majority vote of the House of Commons only."
	That is not correct. I have taken further advice from the Clerks and I have a letter from the Clerk Assistant and Director General, Mr Robert Rogers, which, if the Committee will indulge me, I will quote. He explains that there is a precedent of super-majorities in Standing Orders being used, for example, on closure motions in the 1880s. He says:
	"As to the practical issue of a "super-majority" SO being able to be amended or repealed only by a super-majority, I see no difficulty. The Speaker would be the arbiter of whether a motion...either was (a) orderly and (b) had been agreed to; he would be bound by the Standing Order (which should perhaps contain an explicit prohibition on "notwithstanding"-type Motions), and his decision would be beyond any external review."
	That neatly and devastatingly removes the need for the entire Bill. We could be operating entirely through Standing Orders, which would be protected by the super-majority that the Government want to embed in legislation for general elections. It leaves the question of why the Government are resisting this advice.
	Amendment 6 is a more elaborate way of saying what the Government have already put in the Bill. I would be the first to accept that it may be regarded as a more elaborate bit of sticking plaster, because the clause will be subject to judicial interpretation. A certificate could not be presented to the courts-not even the Speaker could present one to a court for adjudication. The word "whatsoever" in the amendment means that we are referring not just to our own courts, but to the European Court of Human Rights, which is not just a figment of some Eurosceptic's imagination. The Clerk himself has adverted to the fact that the ECHR, under article 10, could be adverted to as a cause for judicial review.
	If a Member of Parliament was prevented from voting in the motion of confidence, they could say that their vote should be taken into account for a valid certificate to be issued by the Speaker. They could therefore mount a challenge saying that the certificate was not valid because they were prevented from voting. A question also arises if sick colleagues cannot get into the Lobby and are nodded through. Would that constitute a ground for challenging a vote of confidence?

Jesse Norman: Was not there an example in the 1970s of whether a Member had been able to vote? There was a tied vote and Harold Lever, I think I am right in saying, felt that he had not been able to exercise his vote? He might have had grounds under this Bill, if the Clerk is right, to invoke the care and attention of the courts.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend adverts to an extremely relevant precedent. What would happen if a two-thirds majority was obtained, or not obtained, by just one vote, or the Speaker interpreted the result as a vote of confidence where there was one vote in it that was represented by somebody who was or was not present for whatever reason? These are very dangerous areas.
	I have two final points, and I am grateful for the indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to quote extensively from documents. The Bill is being driven by an extraordinary consensus on some issues and by the fact that it is so close to the survival of the coalition that it is difficult openly to debate it. The Prime Minister said before the election that Committee stages of Bills should not be whipped, so that what a Committee thought can be understood. The Whips are out in force today, and I do not think that we will really find out what Members think about it. However, that invites the other place to look at the privilege and immunities of the House, and to propose comprehensive amendments that protect Parliament from judicial review.

Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that either the Bill or amendment 6 would protect against judicial intervention on the ground of failure to issue a certificate-a controversy that could easily arise, particularly in the light of provisions in respect of a motion of no confidence? The certificate issues only after the 14-day period has been allowed-it does not issue at the time of the debate or just after the vote, but later on-and there could be controversy about the failure to issue a certificate or about whether a certificate could be issued. Someone might try to bring that to the court.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The amendment, as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, deals with only one aspect of the matter, and, given our limited time to scrutinise this enormously important Bill, I explicitly invite the other place to look carefully at all the aspects and the advice of the Clerk. One of its own Committees is considering the matter and might well come up with different conclusions from those of the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The Lords sorted out the IPSA Bill, under which they kept our proceedings immune from the courts, and I very much hope that they will do the same with this Bill.
	My concluding point is a general one about the Bill but is relevant to the amendment. I do not think that I can recall a major constitutional measure that was so closely associated with the survival of one Administration. We have to pinch ourselves when we think of what we are doing in reality: we are completely changing our constitutional settlement at the behest of a coalition, so that it can remain in power for five years. I do not even think that that is ethical. Parliament's immunity is basically being screwed up, and, although a Bill can at least be repealed, once the courts have been allowed into our proceedings, we will never get them out again without a major break in the constitution such as in 1689.
	All that can be forestalled if the Minister simply says, "These matters cannot be resolved today," because they cannot be resolved on the basis of parliamentary counsel's advice to Ministers about the drafting of Bills. We need the other place to give the highest and most independent legal advice to ensure that we do not inadvertently bring about what the Government themselves do not want to see.

Chris Bryant: Many thanks are due to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who has done us a great favour by pointing out some of the problems in this small aspect of the legislation. He is absolutely right to say that large parts of the Bill exist only for the preservation of a single Administration. I do not know the appropriate Latin equivalent of ad hominem legislation, but this is "ad administrationem" legislation, which is why some provisions will not stand the test of time. The best that we can do is try to ensure that the elements of real peril are tidied up.
	The hon. Gentleman was right in several regards, but not in one. He talked about the IPSA Bill having been miraculously improved in the other place, but none of us really thinks that we ended up with a perfect situation or that nirvana arrived by virtue of that Bill. However, on the Bill before us-I suspect this would also apply to the other constitutional Bill that we recently scrutinised-he is right that if there were a free vote, none of the legislation would go through at all.

Bernard Jenkin: If the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill had been separate Bills, I do not think that either would have gone through.
	On the IPSA Bill, at one stage there was a proposal to allow IPSA to adjudicate on and punish Members for breaching the rules. That would have driven a coach and horses through our traditional immunities under the Bill of Rights, but it was removed in the other place.

Chris Bryant: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, a privileges Act will be needed at some point, and I hope that the Government turn to such legislation. I realise that there are problems with any written or "codified"-to use the Minister's term-constitution, because one risks making it justiciable and must then decide what will be the justice that oversees it. Will it be a supreme court or a constitutional court, such as many other countries have? That is a debate for another day, however.
	The issue of the Speaker's certificate can be addressed only in relation to how it is operated in motions of no confidence, so I do not intend to stray far, Mrs Primarolo, from the specific issues involved. Nevertheless, in the previous debate the Minister said that all the amendments dealt with wildly hypothetical situations. Those were not his precise words, but broadly speaking that is what he meant, and he was right in a sense. When one starts writing bits of the constitution into statute, however, one has to provide for the hypothetical situation that suddenly arises when, for example, voters have cast their votes not so conveniently as to provide for a single majority party in government, or when a party-as has happened regularly over the past 200 years-has collapsed into two parties and is not able to sustain itself in power.
	It is important that we consider the unlikely outcomes that might transpire, because if they were to transpire they would provide us with an enormous constitutional headache, and we would have literally no means of sorting them out, because we would have no other court to appeal to in order to sort out the constitutional row. For instance, if the monarch decided to sack the Prime Minister-this point was raised earlier-other than revolution I know of no other means that we would have to enforce what we all understand to be the proper constitutional settlement.
	I presume that the Government have drawn up the provision on the Speaker's certificate as they have done in an attempt to mirror provisions in the Parliament Act 1911, as amended of course in 1949. In an attempt to ensure that in accordance with the Bill of Rights the courts did not interfere in parliamentary proceedings, that legislation tried to provide a cast-iron process whereby the Speaker could certificate that certain Bills were money Bills and did not, therefore, have to go through the same process in the House of Lords as other Bills. It also provided that if a money Bill were amended or not passed by their Lordships within a certain period-I think it is a month-it would be automatically be sent to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
	I also presume that the Government have used that legislation to draw up the legislation before us, because section 1(3) of the 1911 Act states that
	"the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairmen's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection."
	That process still occurs, and Mr Speaker doubtless went through it before he recently certified several Bills as money Bills.
	There is a difficulty, however, with transposing that provision directly into provisions for a situation in which the Government have lost a motion of no confidence, or into measures that provide the Speaker with a series of fairly significant powers. The Speaker will get to decide when to issue that certificate. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex has already said, that means that the Speaker will decide whether nodding people through when Members are on the parliamentary estate and a Whip, by agreement between the Whips from both sides, nods them through at the end of a vote by saying, "And two more," is allowed.
	The Speaker will decide also, for instance, whether 14 days have passed since the no confidence motion has been carried. That is important, because past debates on a motion of no confidence might have started at 3.30 in the afternoon, but they certainly did not finish by midnight; sometimes, they took up the whole of the next day's business. In parliamentary terms, Members were still on the first day, so the question whether 14 days had transpired would be a moot point.
	Further, the Speaker will decide what is a motion of no confidence. I therefore presume that, similarly, he will decide what is a motion of confidence. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many of those issues could be dealt with in Standing Orders. That would be very helpful to the House on the question of what counts as a motion of no confidence or of confidence, in particular, because this is a matter not of partisan advantage or ideological divide, but of trying to ensure that there are practical measures to obviate a constitutional disaster should the moment arise.
	It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us whether he is minded to suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that there should be motions to change the Standing Orders of this House to make some of the conventions that currently exist part of Standing Orders. For instance, there is the question whether we should have in Standing Orders the provision that when the Opposition demand a motion of no confidence it should usually be provided, say, within 24 or 48 hours, or provision concerning how the Speaker goes about the certification process.

Richard Shepherd: I am a little puzzled as to why the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that this needs to be codified in any way. Our history demonstrates quite openly that this House comes to such a resolution by the processes of the House. When Mr Chamberlain won the famous Norway debate, he recognised that there was no confidence in him personally. These matters are eventually decided by the House and by the judgment of individuals. Surely that is the better way of doing it.

Chris Bryant: In a sense, that is an argument against the whole Bill which I understand. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that this is a conspiracy, but I think that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex feels that a bit of a cosy consensus has developed around the fact that there should be a codification of fixed-term Parliaments. We agree with that codification. However, once one starts to codify one element, one has to codify rather a lot of them. That is why I have wanted to codify what counts as a motion of no confidence and what should be a motion of confidence. Perhaps we should have tried to codify it in a slightly different way so that, for instance, a motion to amend the Loyal Address could also be considered as such, as in 1924.

Bernard Jenkin: What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting might well be sensible in one respect, but I fear that it will not prevent the courts from having a go at this. Indeed, if what constitutes a motion of confidence is codified in our Standing Orders, the courts will then be interpreting whether our Standing Orders reflect what could be regarded as such. If he wants clarity and is seeking to provide a better definition, this has to be put into the legislation. Of course, that reflects the point that we are tempting the courts to interfere in the proceedings of this House.

Chris Bryant: That is an interesting point. The Bill of Rights refers, I think in section 9, to the fact that proceedings in Parliament shall not be touched by any other court. The moot point then is what constitutes a proceeding in Parliament. There have been many discussions about this over the past couple of years, not least in relation to the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is right in one sense. However, I have presumed-this is the advice that I had when I sat on the Government Benches as Deputy Leader of the House-that parliamentary privilege covers proceedings in Parliament and the whole of the Standing Orders of this House, because that how this House chooses to proceed. I think that there is greater security in the Standing Orders of the House.
	Another issue is how we ensure that the Speaker is not dragged into a partisan contest, particularly at a moment of great political drama. As I said in an earlier debate, my concern is that if it is left for the Speaker to have to determine all these elements, the Speaker's impartiality is compromised.
	Another strange element of the Bill is the provision that says that before the Speaker issues his certificate, he shall consult the Deputy Speakers. That mirrors the provision in the 1911 Act whereby the Speaker, before issuing his certificate on a money Bill, has to consult two members of the Panel of Chairs. What happens if all the Deputy Speakers disagree with issuing the certificate? Why should the Speaker have to consult? One presumes that it is simply a matter of fact, although I suppose we all know that facts are rarely clearly delineated and are rather more subjective than most people would want to admit. The point is, however, that this puts the Speaker and potentially the House in peril, because people may want to contest any one of the various elements of the Speaker's decision. One of the matters that would almost certainly arise if there were any contest as to whether the certificate was being rightly issued is what the Deputy Speakers had said. That is an unfortunate direction for us to take.
	We have tabled an amendment, on which I hope to divide the Committee, on the timing of when the Speaker issues the certificate. At the moment, the Bill makes no provision whatsoever on when the Speaker's certificate should be issued. One therefore presumes that it could be a month, two months or several months after the passage of two weeks. Let us say, for instance, that after a motion of no confidence has been carried, the Government try to reform themselves with a different concatenation of political parties and do not manage to secure a new motion of confidence, but there are still patently ongoing negotiations that are nearing their closing phase. Would it then be all right for the Speaker not to issue a certificate at that point but to wait until such time that another Government had been formed? The difficulty is that if the Speaker chose not to do so, who is to gainsay the Speaker? There is no provision in the Bill for what would happen if the Speaker has not done what the Bill requires.
	For all those reasons, I believe that this element of the Bill is flawed. I also believe that certain elements should not be in statute but should be in Standing Orders in order to provide greater certainty for the House by taking them within the concept of proceedings of this House. Above all, I want to ensure that there is no uncertainty about the specific provision as to when the Speaker has to act and when the Speaker may act.

Jesse Norman: I wish to speak in favour of the amendment. First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister on the very calm and effective way in which he has steered this legislation through the House?
	None the less, it seems to me that a basic issue with the legislation remains unresolved. It has been described in this House as a matter of parliamentary privilege, but in fact it concerns the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. One thinks of the magisterial words of A.V. Dicey:
	"The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined"-
	by which he means the King or Queen in Parliament, rather than just Parliament itself-
	"has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."
	That is the cardinal principle at issue today. It is worth saying that our parliamentary sovereignty remains intact in principle. It remains open to this House to repeal, if it so wished, the Act of Settlement 1701 by simple majority. The sovereignty of Parliament can thus be deliberately limited in its effects by this House-for example, by treaty-but it should not be limited by accident, by inadvertence or by over-confidence. There is a risk-a small risk-that this will happen under these provisions.
	The Clerk of the House has advised in writing and in testimony that to include parliamentary voting procedure in statute would risk judicial scrutiny of the proceedings of this House, and possible legal challenge. It is important to note that this is not merely the view of the Clerk of the House, but also the view of Speaker's Counsel, and it has legal authority behind it. That is simply because the functions described under the clause are statutory functions, and it would therefore be for the courts to determine whether those functions are lawfully exercised. That is, of course, advice rendered to the House, not to the Government.
	This issue was rightly taken up by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. In response, the Government relied on expert witnesses to show that the Bill would avoid unwarranted legal challenge. As has been discussed, the Clerk recommended a way past the problem, which was that the procedure should be written into Standing Orders, but that was rejected by the Government. In my judgment, it is perfectly legitimate for the Government, after due consideration and on legal advice, to insist on their preferred approach of including the relevant procedures in the legislation, rather than in Standing Orders. Nevertheless, we are discussing a separate issue-related, but separate.
	I believe that the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment for three reasons. First, as with all legal issues, this issue is not absolutely clear; it does not admit of certainty. The Government have relied on expert advice, but when Dawn Oliver and Anthony Bradley gave testimony to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, both experts acknowledged the small but clear risk of judicial challenge. They stated that precedent and statute are being relied on that may themselves require new legislative support. As has been noted today, that risk would be magnified by the heat and time pressure of an election.
	I would like to correct something that I said earlier to the Committee with reference to Harold Lever, by quoting from the evidence of the Clerk of the House before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
	"I won't bore the Committee with too many precedents, but I couldn't resist this one. This is from 1974 and it's to do with the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I will read a very short extract from the Journal of that year. 'Mr Harold Lever, Member for Manchester Central, acquainted the House, That in the Divisions on Amendments...to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill...he was recorded as having voted with the Noes, but he had to inform the House that he was not within the Precincts of the House at the time of those Divisions and that in consequence his vote ought not to have been so recorded.'"
	The Clerk continued:
	"In this case, when Mr Lever came to the House and acquainted the House about his absence, the whole procedure was declared null and void, including the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill had to be called back from the House of Lords and the whole process had to happen again."
	He concluded:
	"I don't think I need labour the point of what this would mean in terms of a no confidence vote."
	Secondly, I think that the Government should accept the amendment because there is a clear trend of more public decisions falling under the scrutiny of the courts. I do not think that that is currently happening in domestic law, and in my view fears over judicial activism are misplaced. Nevertheless, we now have an independent Supreme Court that might not always exercise the restraint and care that has been shown by the present generation of judges in acknowledging and preserving the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
	The European Courts are taking a greater interest in domestic matters. The European Court of Human Rights has heard at least one case that the British courts would not consider on the grounds that it fell under parliamentary jurisdiction. European judges have expressed concern over the lack of remedies against the exercise of parliamentary privilege.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point about the European Court of Human Rights. As soon as something gets into the Court, it respects no immunities whatsoever-nor does the European Court of Justice, but that is not adverted to in this case. Once a case is in that system, we do not know where it will lead. The European Court of Human Rights certainly would not respect the limitations of the 1689 Act.

Jesse Norman: I do not wish to comment on the procedure or intention of the European Courts, but I note merely that it is true historically that their scrutiny has extended itself over time. It is noted less than it should be that European judges have expressed concern about the exercise of parliamentary privilege and about the lack of remedies that people possess against its exercise.
	The final reason why the Government should look again at the amendment is that the consequences of a mistake could be momentous. In the short term, a dissolution of Parliament and thereby an election could hang on it. In the longer term, there could be wider political and constitutional implications of judicial scrutiny of our power.
	The amendment is simply worded, it offers an additional layer of protection for Parliament against a serious threat, and it does so at little or no additional cost. I urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.

Tristram Hunt: I, too, shall speak to amendment 6, which would take us some way in the direction in which we should be heading to protect this place from the actions of the courts.
	Every day, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, we see growing evidence of interference by and elements of activism in the courts. We now have the Supreme Court in Parliament square, and large buildings tend to have large consequences. The emeritus professor of public administration at University college London, Professor Gavin Drewry, has recorded a major shift towards cases of public law, with some high-profile cases having a constitutional air:
	"The establishment of the Supreme Court is an important constitutional landmark, and it would be surprising if the Court itself were to stand completely aside from the ongoing process of constitutional development."
	There is a strong sense of certainty that the Supreme Court will be involved.
	It is apposite to be discussing this Bill after this morning's judgment in the case of three former Members of this House, Morley, Chaytor and Devine, and also a peer, against their claim of parliamentary privilege. In his summation, Lord Phillips noted that
	"extensive inroads have been made into areas that previously fell within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament."
	His statement should be of major concern to parliamentarians when considering the Bill, and in particular to Ministers, who I hope have read and digested the judgment and are coming to sensible conclusions about it.
	If I may, I shall quote Lord Phillips at greater length:
	"Where a statute does not specifically address matters that are subject to privilege, it is in theory necessary as a matter of statutory interpretation to decide a number of overlapping questions. Does the statute apply within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster? If it does, does it apply in areas that were previously within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament? If so, does the statute override the privilege imposed by article 9? In practice there are not many examples of these questions being considered, either within Parliament or by the courts. If Parliament accepts that a statute applies within an area that previously fell within its exclusive cognisance, then Parliament will, in effect, have waived any claim to privilege."
	Those are damaging and dangerous comments, which have wide repercussions.
	Lord Phillips argues that the ultimate judgment of such matters rests with the courts. He quotes approvingly a letter written on 4 March 2010 by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the solicitor acting for Lord Hanningfield which had been approved by the Committee for Privileges:
	"Article 9 limits the application of parliamentary privilege to 'proceedings in Parliament.' The decision as to what constitutes a 'proceeding in Parliament', and therefore what is or is not admissible as evidence, is ultimately a matter for the court, not the House."
	We should consider that evidence and the actions of a growing number of judges in considering the Bill.

Bernard Jenkin: Bluntly, what the hon. Gentleman is averting to is a power struggle. The question is whether the House will stand up for its immunities or give them up. The Bill is an indication that we want to give them up.

Tristram Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the fundamental basis of his analysis, which is that the constitutional reform programme is driven by the immediate necessities of the Government in the context of this Parliament. We are making major decisions that will have wide ramifications in the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom, based on a political programme and timetable. That is never the best way in which to develop deep consensus thinking about the constitution.
	I would finally raise a point that the Clerk of the House has also raised. As he put it in a note to the Committee in the other place,
	"given that a draft Parliamentary Privileges Bill has now been announced, why deal in advance and separately with a matter affecting the proceedings of the House of Commons in legislation",
	if it is not for the specific political purposes of the current Government?

Richard Shepherd: I am more and more puzzled about the Bill as we go on, but there are two propositions in this group of amendments. I support amendment 6, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I am grateful for the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Indeed, I was elated at the time of the election to hear that Jessye Norman had been elected to the House. I spent six months seeking out that fantastic opera singer-I got the wrong individual, as you will appreciate, Ms Primarolo, and I am very grateful to have encountered my hon. Friend on the Floor of the Committee.

Jesse Norman: rose-

Chris Bryant: He wants to sing. Sing for Britain.

Jesse Norman: No. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to sing, but I am pleased to report that I have managed to overcome the quadruple handicaps of being tall, white, English and male.

Richard Shepherd: And formidable handicaps they often are.
	The endeavour of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and those who support the amendment was to provide some form of belt-and-braces approach. None of us is confident that it can work, because the aspirations and ambitions of several of our lords justices have given one an uncertainty as to where they are heading in the rewriting of the constitution. I am also mindful of the European Court of Human Rights. We have an inferior court that we call a Supreme Court and a superior court that we call a court of human rights, and on top of all that we have another court called the European Court of Justice. Somewhere in there I can see a demented Prime Minister making an application for unfair dismissal as a result of a vote to every one of those courts in turn, while we watch on, as though it were a Gilbert and Sullivan pantomime. I shall support the amendment.
	Similarly, I will support amendment 23. The matter has to be determined quickly and appropriately, so I shall not waste the House's time having indicated the actions that I will take.

Mark Durkan: Like the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), I shall speak in support of amendments 6 and 23, which are both attempts to earth the Bill against some of the dangerous shocks that could be created for the House in the future. To make some of my points, I will have to refer to what the Minister said about the previous group of amendments.
	In the debate on the previous group, the Minister said that he could think of no circumstances in which a debate on a motion of no confidence would take place without the House knowing that it was a motion of no confidence, even though the Bill requires the Speaker to issue a certificate only after a period of 14 days has elapsed-it does not specify how long after. That creates a situation that we all have to consider before we even go into the danger of what will happen when the matter goes to the courts. Let us first look at the difficulties and controversies that will be created in this House.
	If a motion of no confidence can be played like a wild joker, and any motion can be converted into one, then whenever there is a controversial issue or one involving Opposition or rebel tactics, the Speaker will be asked early in a debate, "Will you signal whether you would be minded to say that this debate is certifiable? Will you declare that we are going through a potentially certifiable chain of political and constitutional events?" Of course, the Speaker might wish to say, "You are trying to draw me into a matter of controversy", because he might not be privy to what Whips are saying to Members about the significance of a particular motion.
	What would happen if the Speaker said that a motion was not certifiable, and the Prime Minister subsequently decided that the nature, colour and content of the debate meant that it had been a motion of no confidence in him rather than in the Government, as in the example of the 1940 debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills? Somebody could announce from the Dispatch Box, on either the Opposition or Government side of the House, that as far as they were concerned, there had been a motion of no confidence. Would that mean that the Speaker's ruling was somehow removed or overturned? If anybody wanted to contest in court either the issuing of a certificate or the failure to issue one, that sequence of events involving the Speaker and Front Benchers could become relevant. It could become a matter of contest and controversy being presented in court.
	Even short of the matter getting to the courts, we are already potentially compromising the Speaker. He will constantly be hostage to inquiries as to whether a particular motion could be treated as a motion of no confidence, and his ruling could at any time be upstaged from the Treasury Bench.

Charles Walker: My children once asked me, "What does a heffalump look like?" I said, "You'll know one when you see one." Has that not been the case with confidence motions throughout history? The House has known one when it has seen one, and we are in danger of over-complicating the process in the Bill.

Mark Durkan: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, and that was why I indicated my support for earlier amendments that would have narrowed the ambiguity and reduced the possibility of political and procedural chicanery, with which the Bill is riddled.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that there is a picture of the heffalump in several of A. A. Milne's books?

Mark Durkan: I accept that point fully.

Charles Walker: I shall admonish my children for not being better read.

Mark Durkan: I will acknowledge these interventions no further.
	To return to the matter at hand, let us be clear that the Bill's provisions are open to all sorts of contests, questions and controversies. As I have said, I believe that the Minister was wrong to say that the House will know in all circumstances when something is a vote of confidence. If he wanted to make that incontrovertibly so, he would need to provide either in Standing Orders or in the Bill for a formal indication by the Speaker that a certificate could be issued prior to the period set out in the Bill, which starts 14 days after a motion. That, in turn, would bring the Speaker into areas of political controversy and intervention. Amendment 6 is clearly aimed at ensuring that those difficulties do not make the issuing of a certificate, or possibly the failure to issue one, a matter of controversy that can be brought to the courts.
	In discussing previous amendments, Members alluded to affairs currently in Oireachtas Éireann and in the Dail. Those affairs may be relevant this week, because an opposition party there has indicated that it might take to the courts the question whether, under the constitution, the agreement that the Irish Government have entered into has to be subject to a vote of the Dail. Let us not rule out circumstances in which a party here, possibly a party of Opposition, could feel that the Speaker had wrongly declined to issue a certificate, or that the Government were using all sorts of procedural chicanery to prevent certificates being issued and to reset the clock. That party might then feel obliged to take the matter to court if it felt that it faced dead ends and chicanery in Parliament. That is exactly the situation that was threatened in Dublin this week given what the Irish Labour party justice spokesman said. Let us not join the Minister in completely dismissing all such possibilities.
	I do not want to move from Dublin to Northern Ireland affairs, but I have some experience of what happens in practice. I was involved in negotiating and implementing the Good Friday agreement, including as a Minister and Deputy First Minister. Ministers told this House that procedures would follow their own course and that political matters would not end up in the courts, but then I found that my election as Deputy First Minister was taken to court-when I was jointly elected with David Trimble-because all sorts of rules were bent and twisted and the clock was reset by Secretaries of State and others.
	The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set a clear six-week period, but Secretaries of State discovered that if they suspended things for 24 hours, there would be a new six-week period. Whenever there is a facility to contrive a completely new situation and dispose of a statutory deadline, it is used-whenever Ministers are told that in case of emergency they can smash the glass, they do so. Completely contrary to the assurances and explanations given to the House when we debated the 1998 Act, a number of Secretaries of State found themselves doing that. In addition, Assembly Members redesignated to pass particular votes, even though they said that they would not, and so on.
	In the context of the Bill, people have said that a Government would never put themselves in the embarrassing position of activating a vote of no confidence in themselves or cutting corners, ignoring rules or resetting clocks so that they can bypass dates and deadlines, but the Northern Ireland experience shows that that is not so. The exigencies of the moment, and the demands for stability and good governance, can be used as circumstantial excuses. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we are trying to provide for fixed-term Parliaments with clear, fixed and guaranteed arrangements, we must go further than the Bill does. It leaves too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Executive when there has been a motion of no confidence, and in respect of their influence over the decision of whether a motion is one of no confidence or otherwise.
	I therefore ask the Minister to acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another place and in the House at another time to make his own amendments, so that the Bill does not create those difficulties and controversies?
	Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of controversy. What if there are differences between the Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters could find themselves before a court, not only because somebody might want to contest the fact or content of a certificate, but more importantly because people might want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be caught in the same position as Scottish football referees. They have been accused of taking and changing decisions in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us protect the office of the Speaker and this House.

Robert Buckland: I rise to make a brief contribution. I have listened with great interest to the debate and I await with even greater interest the Minister's response to the very well advocated position on amendment 6, with which I have great sympathy.
	It seems blindingly simple to me. Clause 2(3) stops at the words, "for all purposes." The comparison with section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911 has been made, so why not include the extra words,
	"and shall not be questioned in any court of law"?
	The amendment proposes the use of the word "whatsoever", which was no doubt an attempt by my hon. Friend the. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to deal with the European question-that is perfectly legitimate and I understand entirely the reason for his wording-but the point is the same: if such a provision was good in 1911, why is it not good now? If anything, the balance between Parliament and the courts has deteriorated, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) eloquently outlined. The balance is now extremely fine, and it is in danger of being overturned in favour of judicial activism.
	It may well be that reliance will be placed upon the residual powers of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but as an Act of Parliament, that too is subject to judicial interpretation. Over the years, it has been interpreted in a variety of ways by the courts. Notably, it has been impliedly waived or restricted by this House. Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 is a good example of Parliament deciding, in effect, to allow its privilege to be qualified. I have strong views on the wisdom of that legislation-it was foolish and has led to unintended consequences, which are at the heart of this debate.
	No Member of Parliament wants a diminution of its authority or power. This is an elected Chamber and we represent the people of this country. Sovereignty means just that. It is right that all hon. Members worry-even if it is sounds like lawyers' caution-about any further unintended diminution of our authority. That is why I support amendment 6. Why not change clause 2(3) to put things as far beyond doubt as possible, mirroring what legislators did in 1911, to ensure that the spectre of the judiciary questioning and second-guessing the proceedings of the House does not become a reality?

Geoffrey Cox: I had not intended to speak, and I shall be extremely brief. Most of my remarks will be addressed to the Minister in the hope that he can provide the clarification in substance to the questions asked by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which I should like to reinforce.
	My first question is precisely that which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) just asked. Why not add the proposed words? If clause 2(3) is intended to be an instruction to the courts that a certificate shall not be challenged, on the face of it there could be no real reason, unless the Minister has thought of something that others have not thought of or been advised otherwise, why the injunction of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which is more expressive, explicit and detailed, should not be added. Will the Minister elucidate the purpose of stopping short at the word "purposes" and not going on to be as explicit as possible?
	I ask that because historically, ouster clauses in administrative law have not been conspicuously successful. The courts have not paid very much attention to interpreting their duty to examine such issues, and often even where the ouster clause has been passed.  [ Interruption. ] I see from the sedentary reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)-the Deputy Leader of the House-that the reason may be that such provisions are so pointless that there is no point in going any further. If that is the reason, it would be helpful if the Government made that clear, so that Members could consider that. I have to tell him that I do not consider the provision to be pointless-I would not imagine that the Government would do anything that was pointless in drafting the legislation.

David Heath: indicated  assent .

Geoffrey Cox: I see my hon. Friend nodding sagely. That provision therefore must have a function. If that function can be increased in its effect and efficacy by adding the proposed words, why not incorporate them?
	That brings me to my second point. If it is necessary under clause 3(3) to try to instruct the courts that the certificate should not be justiciable-that it should not be considered-that must imply, as does my hon. Friend's reaction from the Front Bench, that the Government are aware that the courts may well, even in remote and possibly extreme circumstances, become ensnared in the examination of these issues. One can see considerable skill and intelligence at work in the drafting of the Bill. One sees that it is intended not to be tempting to the courts. If we codify too much in statute, the danger is that the courts would be drawn into examining whether the preconditions for a motion of confidence had been met, whether the definitions were properly complied with and so on. What the legislation seems to be doing-if this is the intention, it is a laudable one-is enacting, in broad outline, so as to make it clear to the courts, that the critical questions of definition and discretion are still for the House and the proper authorities of the House. It is a statute that is intended to preserve a certain flexibility and suppleness so that the courts are not drawn into examining such issues, whereas they would be if we laid down too precise a definition of the concepts that they involve.
	I appreciate that, and I see the point of it. It no doubt forms part of the Government's confidence that the courts will not ordinarily enter into that territory. However, the mere presence of that ouster clause suggests that the Government are aware that in some circumstances they might. As the Government have indicated-albeit via a sedentary reaction-they are plainly aware that ouster clauses do not always work. That suggests to me that the Government are content-or at least have made a strategic decision-that in certain circumstances the judicial authorities may come to interpret and consider this legislation. I accept that that is highly unlikely in the ordinary case, given the amount of discretion, the amount of territory left to the Speaker and the ill-defined nature of many of the concepts. It would be a bold court indeed that entered into a discussion of such issues and allowed them to become the subject of a judicial review.

Bernard Jenkin: We all know that we are talking about heated and potentially controversial circumstances. If there was a raging controversy about alleged malpractice in our proceedings or surrounding them, and if public opinion was strongly supportive of one view or the other, there would be intense pressure on a court to intervene. Does my hon. and learned Friend not think it would be difficult for a court not to intervene under such circumstances?

Geoffrey Cox: No, I do not think that. Intense pressure is precisely what an independent judiciary is set up to resist. One would expect and hope for that from a senior judge. We are fortunate in the judiciary we have in this country. I hope that hon. Members will reflect carefully on some of the language that we have used in this debate today. It is not the case that the judiciary have an appetite to assume the powers of this House. Indeed, in my experience the preponderance in the judiciary is to be careful and scrupulous in the way they observe the parameters of judicial power.
	The problem is-if I can extend this parenthesis as briefly as I may-that we have invited the judiciary into the territory time after time, since the European Communities Act 1972, which fundamentally altered the constitutional arrangements in this country. It essentially meant that there was a higher constitutional court, namely the European Court of Justice-we already have it-which presupposes and believes it is capable of trumping domestic law. That ultimately led to a decision in a case called Factortame, in which an Act of Parliament was set aside by the House of Lords, on the basis of the seniority-or superiority-of the European Union's law. Then we had the Human Rights Act 1998, which preserves-or attempts to preserve-a careful balance. Nevertheless, it invites the courts into consideration of the policies and legislative objectives-almost on the basis of their merits-that this House has always considered to be its prerogative and to fall within its exclusive sphere. The courts are careful, but they themselves acknowledge that the Human Rights Act has invited them further into that territory.

Chris Bryant: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important contribution, and he is right about the reluctance of the courts, for the most part, to intervene and tread on our toes, as it were. However, the truth is that those elements of parliamentary privilege that attach because of not wishing to interfere with proceedings in Parliament get very fuzzy at the edges. Indeed, there are areas where others want the courts to express a view. My anxiety is not that there would be a challenge when the Speaker had issued a certificate, but that a challenge would be far more likely when the Speaker had decided not to do so.

Geoffrey Cox: I have heard that observation made, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address it. I do not feel quite as concerned as hon. Members who have expressed their views on that point, and I will say why. A court would very soon see through an argument that went: "The Speaker has not issued a certificate in circumstances where we"-the party bringing the application to the court-"think he should have done." The reason is that if a certificate is conclusive for all purposes, so must the absence of a certificate be. I do not believe for a moment that a court would see the matter any other way when the Speaker had chosen not to make a certificate. Otherwise, we would have to have a provision in the Bill saying that if the Speaker chooses not to certify, that should not be challenged either. It must be implied that if a Speaker made a deliberate and conscious choice not to certify, the absence of the certificate-that choice-must equally be conclusive, and I think that most courts would see it that way. One could argue that that should be explicit in the Bill, but for my purposes, I would not have thought a court would find impressive an argument that said that a Speaker who decided not to certify could be judicially reviewed, whereas if he had certified-let us say, in the negative-he could not be. That would be pointless.

George Howarth: The issuing or non-issuing of a certificate is a slightly false comparison. The issuing of a certificate would result in action-providing that it was not challenged successfully in a court-whereas the non-issuing of a certificate would, I presume, simply preserve the status quo.

Geoffrey Cox: What is the point of a certificate? It is not going to be challenged in a court, because the Government and this House will instruct the courts not to look at it. The point of the certificate is merely to express in writing the Speaker's view that something had been a motion of confidence. If he does not issue a certificate, it is plainly the case that he has reached the view that it is not a motion of confidence. However, it is highly unlikely that the mere fact that a Speaker had produced that view but not committed it to a piece of paper would induce the courts to enter that territory and issue what used to be called a writ of mandamus-it is now called a mandatory order-to force him to do so. I find that improbable and implausible. I hope that the Minister will draw some comfort from that, but he should not draw complete comfort from it, because the mere fact that we are considering whether the courts would or would not be able to enter this territory will induce litigants, lobby groups and political groups to bring these very applications before the courts to test out the territory. It will not be long before the courts start to consider the extent to which the Bill allows them in, and the extent to which it does not. That is where the hon. Gentleman of whose constituency I am shamefully ignorant-

Chris Bryant: Stoke-on-Trent.

Geoffrey Cox: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) quoted the recent judgment of Lord Phillips, and that is important because Lord Phillips made it plain that the courts will reserve the power to define the parameters of parliamentary prerogative and privilege. If the Bill remains enacted in the law of this country for a long period, which I rather doubt, there will inevitably be a point at which the courts are invited in and at which they will start to examine the extent to which they can and cannot become involved. Their view might not entirely coincide with that of the Government. For example, the question of whether a certificate is valid might arise. The Bill states:
	"A certificate under this section is conclusive for all purposes."
	A court might well feel entitled to consider whether, as a matter of law, it is in fact a certificate. In the past, that is the way in which ouster clauses have been outflanked.
	I am asking the Minister to consider this matter, and I am asking from the heart. I have noticed that, from time to time, he has found many of the interventions by Members not altogether to his taste. Perhaps the smile of the Cheshire cat is always seated on his face during these debates simply because of his serene command of his brief and his sublime confidence in the merits of this legislation. However, I ask him to address the consciences of many of the Members on his own side who have deep and sincere concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is among them, and when he rises to speak on matters of the constitution, he must always be listened to with respect. He may not be a lawyer but, by Jove, his instincts on the constitution are proud and honoured by a long tradition in this House. I pay tribute to him for standing up with such integrity and for such a long time for the traditional view of the constitution in this House. It is not a bad thing to stand up for tradition. It is not wrong to honour the way in which our forefathers constructed the constitution, the wisdom of it and the value that it has conveyed down the ages to the inhabitants of this country.
	Will the Minister address this matter? I hope that I have expressed myself modestly by saying that I do not endorse or adopt many of the more exaggerated flights of fantasy that have occasionally been bandied about the Floor of the House. However, it surely cannot be denied that there is some risk and some legitimate cause for concern, when this matter seems to prey on the minds and the consciences of so many Members of this House who are motivated by entirely sincere reasons, rather than merely by the need to hear the sound of their own voice. I ask the Minister to address those concerns with the sincerity with which they have been expressed.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for those kind words from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox).
	When Mr Hoyle was in the Chair last week, he made it clear that he did not intend to have a stand part debate on this clause as we will have touched on all parts of it when debating the amendments. Before I move on to considering the amendments, it is worth putting into context the parts of the clause about which Members are concerned.
	I think I am right in saying that the concerns expressed about privilege and about whether the courts should intervene have almost exclusively related to clause 2(2), which deals with motions of confidence. Interestingly, the Clerk of the House, in his evidence and in conversations with me, was not concerned about subsection (2), given that it uses a perfectly well-precedented certification procedure. His concern-I think I explain it accurately-was with subsection (1), which covers the certification of an early general election, rather than with the certification procedure in principle. His concern was with the nature of the procedure that had to take place before the Speaker certified. In other words, not only would the House have had to pass a motion on a Division, but a particular number of Members would have had to vote.
	Members expressed concern about motions of no confidence and the extent to which courts would want to interfere in them, but the Clerk of the House was exclusively concerned about clause 2(1), which deals with the House voting on a motion for an early general election, because of the two-thirds majority.

Bernard Jenkin: At the risk of repeating what I have already read out from the Speaker's memorandum, I want to ensure that we are not speaking at cross-purposes. In paragraph 16 of the Committee's report, the Clerk makes it very clear, in discussing clause 2(2), that
	"The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker's consideration of confidence motions and the House's practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts."
	I do not think that the Clerk could have been clearer: it is subsection (2) that he is concerned about.

Mark Harper: I had a conversation with the Clerk about the certification, with the majority being specified. The Government decided to place the provisions on the early general election in statute rather than relying on Standing Orders because, as I stated in the memorandum I placed in the Library on 13 September, we cannot achieve the policy objective by relying on Standing Orders, which can be changed by a simple majority-

Bernard Jenkin: That is not true.

Mark Harper: Let me just finish this point, then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.
	Standing Orders can be changed by a simple majority. The Government's view was that, if that was the case, the power to dissolve Parliament early would effectively be left with the Prime Minister.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg to suggest that, if the Minister had listened carefully to what I said earlier, he would have heard me reading from a letter I had received from Mr Robert Rogers, who made it absolutely clear that it is possible to entrench a Standing Order of this House with its own super-majority. I am astonished that the Government do not understand that, and that the whole basis of this Bill seems to rest once more on the denial of advice given by the Clerks of the House.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend cited in the letter from Robert Rogers a reference to existing Standing Orders, which require a particular majority for an event to take place. I think he mentioned the requirement for 100 Members to vote for a closure motion. There is no precedent for a Standing Order, passed by a simple majority, to entrench itself and require that it cannot be changed, other than by a vote of this House on a different majority. The Government know of no precedent for that, and no Member has given an example of one. If a Standing Order provided that an early general election could be held only after a vote with the specified majority, and if that Standing Order could be changed by a simple majority vote in the House, it would be open to the governing party, at the behest of the Prime Minister, to change the Standing Order and to trigger an early election based on the whim of the Executive. That is exactly what we are trying to remove under the Bill. The Government believe that if the policy objective is to be achieved, the procedure must be specified in statute.

Richard Shepherd: If that is so-and I accept it as such-why does it not apply to the statute itself?

Mark Harper: I think we have touched on that before. Once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it cannot be changed purely by a majority vote in the House of Commons. The decision would have to be made by Parliament, which would also engage the other place, in which the Government do not have a majority. Even after- [Interruption.] I anticipated that reaction. Even after the appointment of the new list of working peers, the governing parties together will have only 40% of the peers in the upper House; 60% will be Labour peers, Cross Benchers or Lords Spiritual. The fact that this will be an Act of Parliament makes it impossible for a majority vote of a governing party to bring about an early general election, which is our policy objective.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in saying that the main difference is that the matter would have to be dealt with in the second Chamber. As I understand it, however, the coalition agreement states clearly that the Government's aspiration is to create enough peers to meet the proportions formed by each of the parties in the general election. That would provide a majority of 56%-quite apart from the fact that, as far as I can see, virtually every remaining Liberal Democrat Member in the country will be a member of the Second Chamber.

Mark Harper: I will not dwell on this issue at length, Mr Evans, because if I did so you would rule me out of order, but the coalition agreement does not say that. It says that we want to make the upper House more representative of the result in the general election, not exactly in line with it. The hon. Gentleman simply is not right.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) quoted from a judgment. I will not be drawn into the specifics of the Chaytor case-although the Supreme Court has given its judgment, there are ongoing criminal trials-but the flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument lies in the fact that the case concerns the administration of the expenses scheme. The House of Commons has never asserted exclusive cognisance of the expenses scheme. It has never said that the scheme, its administration and the matters that flow from it are parliamentary proceedings, which is why that is not a good example. Moreover, the Supreme Court's judgment recognises the exclusive right of each House of Parliament to manage its own affairs without interference from the other, or from outside Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex quoted the views of the Clerk of the House. If the Government were alone in their view and the Clerk's views were shared by everyone else, my hon. Friend would have a stronger case. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee have taken a great deal of evidence, and the weight of independent expert evidence has supported the Government's view. For example, Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college London said-and I think that this is in line with the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox)-
	"In my view, the government's Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill has been technically well-drafted by the Cabinet Office's parliamentary counsel, particularly in avoiding judicial review of its provisions on early elections by way of Speaker's certificates".
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, said:
	"In the very limited time that we had to look at this matter, the Clerk was the only person to raise this question, and the academics who have been referred to-Professor Hazell, Professor Blackburn and others-completely disagreed with the view put forward by the Clerk."-[ Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 632-3.]

Tristram Hunt: The point was that we did not have enough time to hear other voices that might have agreed with the Clerk of the House, owing to our having to rush our consideration of the Bill and to the speed with which the Government are pushing it through.

Mark Harper: That was also the experience of the Lords Constitution Committee-and, in fact, we have not been rushing the consideration of this Bill. We published it in July, Second Reading was in September, and this is the third day of the Committee stage, in December. We are hardly rushing forward at an enormously swift pace. Months have elapsed. I feel sure that if hundreds of constitutional lawyers and academics agreed with the Clerk and disagreed with the Government, we would have heard from them.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend understand that the Committee had to rush through its work on this Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill at the same time?

Mark Harper: I am prepared to accept that consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been proceeding faster than consideration of this Bill, but I cannot accept that this Bill is being considered at a great pace. It was published five months ago, we have reached only the third day of the Committee stage, and the Report stage is still to come. I believe that we have been proceeding at a sensible pace. Indeed, today's proceedings were added when the Government realised that Members wished to engage in the debate at greater length.

Chris Bryant: The Minister seems to suggest that all the evidence apart from that of the Clerk of the House falls into the other camp. The Committee listened to the various witnesses and reached a rather different conclusion-that the purpose of the Bill needed to be achieved without the courts being invited to question aspects of the House's own procedures or the actions of the Speaker-and urged us to move in a rather different direction from the one advocated by the Government.

Mark Harper: The Committee was quite right. I agree that we need to ensure that the courts do not question those matters. In a moment I will deal with the amendments and the Government's reason for believing that the language we have used about the well-precedented use of Speaker's certificates prevents the courts from questioning the Act.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex observed that judges were not more interventionist. I believe there is evidence that there has been more judicial activism in judicial reviews of Executive decisions, but as far as I am aware there is no evidence that the courts have become more interventionist in challenging parliamentary proceedings. Executive decisions and decisions of Parliament are quite different from each other. Although the Supreme Court has a new name, it has no greater powers than the judicial Committee of the House of Lords that it replaced. I do not think that my hon. Friend's concerns are well judged.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Justice can deal with matters related to European Union law; nothing in the Bill would engage it. Similarly, the functions of the Speaker under the Bill do not engage any of the rights conferred by the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was only last week that the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with that when it said that the Bill's provisions did not need to be brought to the attention of either House on human rights grounds.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)-who is not in the Chamber, as he has had to fulfil a long-standing and important engagement to attend a meeting elsewhere in the House-expressed concern about the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, it has shown the utmost respect for parliamentary privilege. In a 2003 case, A.  v. United Kingdom, it was specifically held that article 9 of the Bill of Rights did not violate the convention by preventing an applicant from taking defamation proceedings against an MP for words said in parliamentary proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights strongly supported the contention that courts would not become involved in these matters.
	I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, who said that owing to the very nature of these events-the fact that they would be politically highly charged-judges would not be keen to rush in and engage in questions that are rightly to be resolved by political rather than legal means. I have heard no evidence, apart from assertion, that courts would do anything different.

Mark Durkan: I gave the example from 2001 when, on the third attempt, David Trimble and I were jointly elected as First and Deputy First Minister by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was taken to the courts. Yes, the courts did not touch on issues connected with the Assembly's standing orders, but they did entertain the suggestion that the Secretary of State had failed to use the power and duty, given to him under law, to set a date for an election if no First and Deputy First Minister have been elected after six weeks. The Secretary of State did not do so, claiming that because he had notice of the potential to elect us, which had been issued by the end day of the six-week period, he could interpret the deadline differently. The court did not throw out the case and the judges-competent, serious, senior judges-divided on the issue. In the light of that precedent, the assurance of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) does not stand.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He accurately sets out the fact that at issue was not a proceeding in Parliament-a decision of this House-but an executive decision by the Secretary of State. As I have said, there is lots of evidence that courts will challenge Ministers' decisions, and one can argue about whether they will be right to do so; Ministers would probably argue they are not, but everyone else would probably argue that they are. The case the hon. Gentleman raises involved an executive decision; it was not a decision of this House or a proceeding in Parliament, and it is not protected under article 9.

Mark Durkan: But what we are talking about is related to the closest equivalent in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 of the certificate powers being given to the Secretary of State. Sections 31 and 32 of the 1998 Act provide for the early Dissolution of the Assembly and early elections. They are the exact same powers, except that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has the powers of an "over-Speaker", rather than their being vested in the Presiding Officer. They are the equivalent powers, however.

Mark Harper: No, I think there is a rather crucial difference. The powers in that Act are given to a Minister-they are not proceedings in Parliament. That leads me nicely on to amendment 6-

Chris Bryant: rose-

Mark Harper: But the hon. Gentleman is keen to get in.

Chris Bryant: Sorry, but the Minister is using the phrase "proceedings in Parliament" as though it were a self-evidently clear concept, but a great deal of legislation and case law has analysed various different aspects of it and it is nowhere near as clear as he might presume.

Mark Harper: No, and that leads to where I was going, which was to turn to amendment 6 and to explain why we are using the language of the device of a Speaker's certificate. There are precedents that have stood the test of time, which is why Professor Blackburn expressed the feeling in the quotation I read that parliamentary counsel had drafted the Bill well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) tabled amendment 6 and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex spoke to it. I can see why they would want to use the wording in the Parliament Act 1911, but the Bill says the Speaker's certificate is "conclusive for all purposes" and the Government do not think inserting the words
	"shall not be...questioned in any court of law"
	adds anything. The 1911 wording has, indeed, stood the test of time, but it used the language of the early-20th century. Later legislation used different wording. The House of Lords Act 1999 used exactly the wording we have used, which provides that certificates of the Clerk of the Parliaments on questions of whether an hereditary peer is one of the excepted 92 hereditary peers are conclusive. The provisions have worked well in practice, whereas wording consistent with the Parliament Act 1911 could bring into question whether protections in more recent Acts were meant to be an inferior sort of protection. We think that would be undesirable.
	Provided certificates are conclusive for all purposes, it is perfectly adequate to show that it is for the Speaker to decide whether the conditions for an early election have been satisfied, not for the courts or the Executive. The effect and the intention of the drafting are perfectly clear. Although the additional words in amendment 6 might appear attractive, they would not add anything to the protection in the Bill. There is no evidence or reason to think the courts would want to trespass on what would effectively be highly politicised issues or that they would not continue to regard matters relating to the internal operation of the House as "proceedings in Parliament".
	I should also like to deal with the wording in amendment 6 that seeks to prevent a Speaker's certificate issued under clause 2 from being "presented" to a court. I can see why my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is trying to do that, but it seems to me that that takes a step backwards. Being able to present the certificate to the court is the simplest and easiest way of informing the court that the conditions for an early election exist and the Speaker has made the decision. That stops the court being tempted to dwell on proceedings in Parliament; it has a clear piece of paper that explains that the Speaker has made that determination and the court need go no further.

Geoffrey Cox: Let us suppose that the Speaker issued a certificate that omitted one of the matters that the statute required him to certify. Would it not be open to a petitioner to argue in court that there had been a failure to comply with the conditions that made a certificate valid and that the court was entitled to examine whether it was a certificate before obeying the ouster that prevents it from challenging the certificate?

Mark Harper: My hon. and learned Friend makes a point that relates to the use of certificates, but what he describes would be perfectly true of the certificate that the Speaker issues on money Bills and the certification that he issues under the Parliament Act. Those are well precedented and have stood the test of time. The courts have been content to hold that the fact that the certificate has been issued by the Speaker is indeed conclusive for all purposes and they have not sought to challenge it.

Geoffrey Cox: We are dealing with a fundamentally different sphere here. Whether or not a Bill is a money Bill is the kind of decision that is suitable only for a legislative Assembly, but on this matter the courts would regard themselves as guarding the right to an election, which is a fundamental right of the population of this country. If Parliament had prescribed that an election should take place and a certificate was defective because it did not stipulate one of the requisite terms, the courts may regard that as an area into which they ought to go to safeguard the right to an election.

Mark Harper: If a certificate was issued by the Speaker, we would be having an election, not stopping one taking place. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend's concern that the courts would hold that the population were being deprived of an election would apply. The language used in the Bill was chosen for exactly the reasons I have suggested. We have used well-precedented, tried and tested language; it has stood the test of time. It is perfectly true to say that people can make groundless applications to courts on all sorts of things, but courts quickly dismiss them and prevent them from proceeding further. We are confident that these proposals are robust and will not have the effect that hon. Members suggest.
	In the few minutes remaining, I wish to discuss amendment 23, because the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggested that he wanted to ask you, Mr Evans, whether he could press it to a Division. The amendment proposes a 24-hour time limit for the issuing of the Speaker's certificate. I can superficially see why that might be attractive, but it sets some conditions that might introduce elements casting doubt on the validity of the certificate if it were delayed, even if it were by only a few minutes, or if it were issued close to the time limit. Thus, the amendment would enable people to question the certificate. We should therefore rely on the standard practice, whereby the Speaker's certificate is the conclusive provision.
	Given what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press their amendments to a Division and that we are able to proceed with the debate.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr Evans, for the opportunity to reply to the debate.
	I regret that I feel compelled to press this matter to a vote, but I feel that the Minister's response has been wholly unconvincing. We are faced with adamant and clear advice from the Clerk of the House that the Minister has chosen to dismiss as irrelevant. Let me remind the House what the Clerk said:
	"The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker's consideration of confidence motions and the House's practices justiciable questions for determination by the ordinary courts."
	That includes
	"what constitutes a confidence motion, the selection of amendments to such Motions and the consequences of their being carried".
	He goes on to say:
	"As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could be drawn into matters of acute political controversy."
	The Minister has not responded with anything substantive to defeat that advice.
	Moreover, the Minister has rested his justification for the Bill on the assertion that it would not be possible to write these provisions into the Standing Orders, which would be automatically immune. Let me read from the Clerk's memorandum again. He said that
	"a Standing Order regulating the matters in the Bill could provide for its staying in effect unless repealed by a specified majority",
	meaning that it could be entrenched,
	"for example by...equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House. Not only is the principle of specifying majorities already written into the Standing Orders of the House, but in the past the House has also required a relative majority for reaching decision."
	My hon. Friend the Minister also dismissed the comments that I read from Mr Robert Rogers, the Clerk Assistant and Director General, who made it clear that we can not only write into our Standing Orders provisions requiring super-majorities, but entrench a- [ Interruption. ] I am rather distressed that the Minister is not even listening to what I am saying. We can entrench a Standing Order with its own super-majority so that it could be removed only by a super-majority, if that is what the House chose to do. The whole basis of the Government's advice remains contested by the Clerks. The basis of the Bill-that this has to be done through statute-also remains contested by the Clerks.
	I doubt that we will win the vote in the Committee this afternoon, but the Minister has failed to give a full response or to acknowledge any of the points that have been made. His subsection refers to a Speaker's "certificate under this section", which is very unspecific. At least the amendment states
	"Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes".
	That word "any" and the reference to the Speaker make it clear that whatever the Speaker issues is uncontested, rather than leave it open to the courts to determine whether the certificate presented by the Speaker complies with the legislation. I am afraid that the Minister has not satisfied me and I do not think that he has satisfied a great many of my colleagues on the Government Benches or in the official Opposition. I want to press the amendment to a vote.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Tessa Munt: On a point of order, Mr Evans. At lunchtime today I was sitting in the Terrace cafeteria and, for the second time in a fortnight, I was unable to hear the Division bells at all. There was nothing to indicate that a vote was taking place. Can you facilitate Members' ability to vote if they are sitting in that area, perhaps by asking the Badge Messengers to inform them that a vote is taking place while the problem is sorted out?

Nigel Evans: Thank you for that point of order. I must say that I have taken a number of points of order in a similar vein since taking the Chair on 8 June, and this is clearly worrying for Members as well as irritating for the Chair. I will instruct that the matter be fully investigated, not just in the area that the hon. Lady has spoken about, but throughout the parliamentary estate. Clearly, it could affect the outcome of a vote. In the short term, I ask that, every time there is a Division today, a messenger goes particularly to that part of the House to ensure that Members are made aware that a Division is taking place.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Orders, 13 September and 24  November  ).
	 The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No.  83D ).
	 Amendment proposed: 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert-
	'(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1) or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under subsection (1) or (2).'.- (Chris Bryant.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: 25, in page 2, line 24, at end add-
	'(6A) In this section a "motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" shall be-
	(a) in the terms "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" or
	(b) in the terms "This House has no confidence in the Prime Minister".'.- (Chris Bryant.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put (single Question on successive provisions of the Bill), That clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 306, Noes 218.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule

Consequential amendments etc

Amendments made: Government amendment 14, page 4, line 9, at end insert-
	 'Parliament Act 1911 (c. 13)3A In the Parliament Act 1911 omit section 7.'.
	Government amendment 15, page 4, line 16, at end insert-
	'7A In section 119(2) after "mourning" insert "(but, in relation to a parliamentary general election, excluding any day to which rule 2 of the parliamentary elections rules does not apply by virtue of rule 2(2A))".'.
	Government amendment 16, page 5, line 9, at end insert-
	'(3A) Omit paragraph (2)(ii) and the "and" before it.'.
	Government amendment 17, page 5, line 18, at end insert-
	'But, in relation to any proceedings commenced afresh by reason of a candidate's death, this paragraph is to be ignored.".'.
	Government amendment 18, page 5, line 18, at end insert-
	'9A In rule 6A(4) in Schedule 1 after "rule 2(1)" insert "(subject to rule 2(2A))".'.
	Government amendment 19, page 7, line 10, at end insert-
	'15A In section 22(2A) after "1983" insert "(subject to rule 2(2A))".'.- (Mr Harper.)
	 Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill, as amended, reported.
	 Bill to be considered tomorrow

Nigel Evans: I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from a previous day. In the Division on the Question relating to the Scottish Parliament, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 212, so the Ayes have it.
	  [The Division list is published at the end of today's debates.]

National Policy Statements

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Session 2009-10, on The proposals for national policy statements on energy, HC 231, and the Government's response thereto, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Energy and Climate Change Committee on 30 November, HC 648- i .]

Charles Hendry: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the draft Energy National Policy Statements.
	The revised draft national policy statements for energy set out national policy, which must be considered in determining whether consent should be granted to infrastructure projects that are examined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the previous Administration consulted on a suite of draft energy national policy statements between November 2009 and February 2010. Alongside that consultation, Parliament undertook scrutiny of the draft national policy statements. Scrutiny in this House was undertaken by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which held a number of oral hearings, requested written evidence and published a report of its findings, together with 30 recommendations and conclusions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the then members of the Committee for the important work that they undertook and the thoroughness with which they approached it.
	This afternoon's debate is part of Parliament's scrutiny of the draft energy national policy statements, so I will talk about the purpose of national policy statements and the changes that we have made to them, the parliamentary scrutiny process required for national policy statements, and the coalition Government's proposals for planning reform. The statements are complicated, lengthy documents that cover all aspects of energy policy, so I will talk at some length in introducing them. I hope that the House will bear with me. I will also give way to any interventions from hon. Members wishing to raise concerns. However, before going into the detail of the national policy statements, I would like to take a moment to set out the background to the coalition Government's energy policy and the need to build new major energy infrastructure, as it is against that background that such massive new investment is required.
	Our energy policy is based on four pillars: energy saving, more renewables, new nuclear, and clean coal and gas. That includes the green deal, which we believe will help to bring existing buildings up to 21st-century efficiency standards. We are taking steps to reduce demand for gas through both energy efficiency measures to help improve our energy security, and demand-side response, through interruptable contracts for large users that will ensure that domestic users are prioritised in an emergency. A reduction in demand will also help to improve our energy security. Under the green deal, home owners and businesses will be able to get energy efficiency improvements without having to pay cash in advance. The private sector will provide the up-front funding, receiving its money back from the energy savings on household bills. That will help to save energy, reduce carbon and protect energy consumers from price rises through greater energy savings.

John Robertson: I commend the hon. Gentleman on the work that he did on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and on which he congratulated everyone involved-they say that self-praise is no praise, but there we go. My great worry, and that of many of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, is that the poor will always suffer. While everybody else is looking for ways of saving money, they cannot do so. What will his Government do to help people who perhaps cannot afford to do what is necessary to make the savings that he is talking about?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has often raised this issue in the Select Committee in the past, and it should be at the heart of our thinking. At this time of year, when people are struggling to pay their bills, how they will pay them in the future is a matter of great concern to us.
	The nature of the green deal is that it does not depend on the creditworthiness of the individual householder. A charge will be set against the future energy bills of their property, with the condition that the total cost of the energy efficiency measures should be such that it can be repaid through that extra charge over a period of 20 or 25 years. So the people living in those properties will get the immediate full benefit in terms of warmth and reduced energy consumption, but the charge will be brought back over time. We think that this policy has been devised in a way that has at its heart the interests of those who are fuel poor and have difficulty in paying their bills. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, in all these issues, there are massive costs for consumers. Our job as a Government is to find ways of trying to drive down the number of units that consumers will be using. The green deal is part of that process, as is smart metering.

Tom Greatrex: May I issue an appeal to the Minister and his colleagues that, as the green deal mechanism is being finalised and formulated, it should not be targeted at only cavity wall and loft insulation? There are many properties in my constituency and elsewhere for which that would be no use at all, and some of those properties are among the least fuel efficient.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman brings to the House a huge amount of expertise on these issues and I very much welcome his contribution. He has touched on an issue that is at the core of our thinking on how to take the green deal forward. He is absolutely right to say that, while a significant number of houses would be helped if it were to address issues of cavity wall and loft insulation, there are many that do not have cavity walls and many that need additional measures. We are looking at the role that boilers can play in regard to energy efficiency, because that area has not been given sufficient attention in the past. The key will be to find a range of measures that are relevant to each individual property, the savings from which will justify the investment over time. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the type of houses that he is talking about in his constituency, in mine, and in many others across the country will be very much included as the green deal is developed.

Andrew Percy: In my constituency, many properties are not on the gas network, and there are no plans to expand the network into many of the small villages there. Will those properties be able to access alternative sources of heating through the green deal, perhaps through air source heat pumps and so on?

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to highlight issues such as these. We said in the coalition agreement that prioritising off-grid customers would be an important part of what we are seeking to do. However, the help for them will not come through the measures in the green deal. His constituents will of course be eligible for support for energy efficiency measures through the green deal, but the renewable heat incentive will give them support for other mechanisms such as air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps and solar thermal installations. There will be a different funding mechanism for that, and we have confirmed that £860 million will be made available for the renewable heat incentive. We will set out the precise details of that in the next few weeks, and it will target precisely the people that he is most concerned about in that respect.

Albert Owen: The Minister has been very effective in campaigning for the extension of the gas network throughout the United Kingdom, but what he has just said will be of little comfort to people in many areas who simply want a choice. At present, they have oil or liquefied petroleum gas, but they want mains gas, which is often located only a few hundred yards away from their village or hamlet. Do the Government understand their frustration? Given that the market is failing them, would it be possible for incentives to be given in this regard, and for the regulator to ensure that those gas connections can take place?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Certainly, encouraging people to install renewable heat sources, particularly in off-grid properties, is part of the solution. He is absolutely right to say, however, that for many people, the convenience of being on the grid will be their primary concern. It must be extremely frustrating to live in a house close to the grid that is unable to benefit from it. Ofgem is working to ensure that the grid is extended, but that is obviously a gradual process. We are considering different ways of dealing with the problem. Grid development is mentioned in the planning policy papers, but we are introducing other measures such as the renewable heat incentive, to help people who currently have no alternative to heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas. I hope that it can be said that we are dealing with the issue comprehensively.

Sarah Newton: Do not local councils also have an important role to play? Cornwall council, for example, is undertaking a project involving feed-in tariffs. It will work with the third sector in using the money that it earns from installing solar panels in the county to help those in the greatest fuel poverty-who, as other Members have pointed out, are often off grid-not only through energy-efficiency schemes but by providing heat from more appropriate sources, such as ground-source heat.

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is right to draw that to the House's attention. As a result of one of the changes that we have made, local authorities are now allowed to sell electricity directly to the grid. Rather than merely being able to host new facilities, they can now become involved in these processes as partners. They can sell the electricity that is generated, and benefit from the feed-in tariffs or other financial packages that are available. I hope that, in difficult times, councils throughout the country will see such measures as an important potential income-earner and a way of encouraging their communities to move in a low-carbon direction. That is a critical part of Government policy.
	We have said that there will be special help for the most vulnerable. The new energy company obligation will provide additional funds for those who are most in need and for homes that are hard to treat, which may need additional support. Our policy also involves the electricity market reform programme, which is a wholesale redesign of our electricity market. There is no doubt that that process, which will begin in a few weeks, is the most fundamental reform of the market for 30 years. It involves a new way of encouraging people to invest in electricity generation, and I cannot over-emphasise the importance that we attach to it. The power sector needs to lead the way when it comes to cutting carbon.

Charlie Elphicke: Many of my least well-off and most vulnerable constituents fear that in five years' time the lights may go out. What action can the Government take to deal with the backlog of infrastructure repairs?

Charles Hendry: I am keen to reassure my hon. Friend. A couple of years ago, the outlook was a cause for great concern. The recession reduced demand by 5% or 6%, and, although it has grown again, it has not reached its previous level. What appeared to be a serious pinch point now seems to have been pushed further out, but that does not give grounds for complacency. We all know that cold winters and, in particular, cold still days place immense demand on the system, and we need to take action to deal with that.
	As much as £200 billion of new investment may be required in our electricity infrastructure. We have to rebuild it. It would have been much better for the country if more of that work had been done before 6 May, and it would have been much better had there not been a five-year moratorium on new nuclear and a delay of some years in new installations. I applaud the conversion of the last Administration, which began to put us back on track, but a number of years were lost.

John Woodcock: rose-

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose-

Charles Hendry: I will give way shortly, but I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not do so immediately, as I am in full flight.
	We need to establish a structure that will give people an incentive to invest in new nuclear, clean coal, coal with carbon capture, renewables-in regard to which we have great potential-and new gas plant, along with gas storage. We are alive to all the challenges, and we are moving forward on all fronts.

John Woodcock: The Government talk a great deal about blank pages. Have they whitewashed their time in opposition, when one party was dead set against nuclear and the other wanted it to be a last resort? If they have converted, that is fine, but let us at least have a bit of candour about the process through which the Minister has got to where he is now.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is new to the House and he might therefore be unaware of the extent to which we worked very constructively with the previous Secretary of State, the now noble Lord Hutton, and others to try to ensure that we took this agenda forward. As the hon. Gentleman has been a special adviser however, he will be aware that nuclear was taken off the agenda for five years. There was a Government White Paper that said, in effect, "We do not see a need for new nuclear in this country." There were no qualifications to that statement; it was just stated that there was no requirement, full stop. For five years, that delayed the development of new nuclear.
	I completely applaud the work of the previous Secretary of State, which has contributed to our country becoming one of the most exciting in the world for new nuclear development. The reality is that we were constructively involved in that process, but for five years nuclear was taken off the agenda.

Martin Horwood: To be candid, the Minister may know that, as per the coalition agreement, many Liberal Democrat Members are still absolutely opposed to nuclear power. Will he confirm that at no point in the last 30 years has it been impossible for private investment for nuclear to come forward, and if Government policy was not preventing that, why does he think no private investment did come forward in the last 30 years?

Charles Hendry: The Government are seeking to address a comprehensive range of issues to do with new nuclear. There have been planning issues; for example, the Sizewell B project took five or six years just to go through the planning stage. Also, regulatory justification is a legal requirement, and that process had to be gone through. Last week, a measure on that passed through this House with a massive majority of over 500 to a couple of dozen, so there has been a significant step forward in that respect. The long-term cost of waste management also needs to be known, and that figure is now being made clear and given to the industry. Other barriers to investment are also now being addressed. Therefore, although it is technically right that there was nothing to stop people investing in new nuclear, it is also absolutely clear that the circumstances did not encourage people to come forward with new proposals.

John Robertson: I should declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I think the Minister is being slightly disingenuous towards the Opposition. It was Labour who led the fight to put nuclear back on to the table. It was not that it had been taken off the table; it was just that nobody really wanted to touch it, including Ministers who were Members of this House at the time. Therefore, in a spirit of cross-party coalition, will the Minister accept that we did our bit in getting nuclear back on to the agenda, and does he agree that now is the time to make sure that these new power stations are built for the benefit of this country

Charles Hendry: I am keen that this coalition should get larger and grander every day, so I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to it. I agree with what he said. I have already twice given credit to the previous Secretary of State. I am very happy to pay tribute to him and the previous Prime Minister for the role they played in putting nuclear back on the agenda.
	In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I think it is true that the challenges we face today are in part a result of not enough construction having been carried out early enough. If there had been more construction in our energy infrastructure over recent years, we would not now be faced with the mountain of needing £200 billion of new investment.

Angela Smith: I am glad to hear that the future of the nuclear industry in the UK will be a good one. Will there, however, be a good future for the UK supply chain for the nuclear industry, particularly in terms of the construction of these stations? What will the Government do to support the supply chain?

Charles Hendry: We are very keen indeed to see the supply chain benefit. We talk to the companies that are looking to invest in this area, and they are very keen to use British know-how, skills and businesses. The Westinghouse approach is to buy where it builds. Therefore, together with Arriva, it has been setting up workshops around the country to encourage people to show the contributions and skills they can bring. From our point of view, this is a critical part of the project. We want them to partner British companies and, as part of that process, we believe there is an opportunity for them to sell that package internationally as well. That is absolutely at the heart of what we want.

Angela Smith: Why, therefore, do the Government refuse to support Forgemasters in its bid to play a strategic part in the development of the supply chain for the future of our power stations?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady is very familiar with the argument. We have said that we looked at the issues as we came into government and we identified those that were based on affordability, not on their importance. We believe that Sheffield Forgemasters makes an extremely important contribution in this area. The Government's position has been clear and what we now do not understand is the Opposition's position.
	We had a vote on regulatory justification last week, which approved two specific reactor types, the Westinghouse and the Areva designs. In that vote the shadow Business Secretary, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Energy Secretary voted against the approval of those designs. How can the shadow Business Secretary make a case for Sheffield Forgemasters when he has voted against the exact design that it is supposed to be supporting? There is a complete hole in the Opposition's policy in this area. I hope that this shadow Minister will rise to his feet to give us clarity on those issues, but when three members of the shadow Cabinet vote against the heart of the nuclear policy, the Opposition's policy is in tatters.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree that our position is in tatters. As I made clear to him in the debate on the justification orders in Committee, when they went through with our support, we would very much welcome an opportunity for the Minister, alongside his colleagues, to go back to Sheffield Forgemasters and argue the case for making sure that it can be part of the supply chain. He is continually reluctant to do so. I suspect that that is not necessarily because of his reluctance, but because his colleagues are reluctant to argue the case.

Charles Hendry: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the highest regard, was going to explain what his shadow Cabinet colleagues had done in that vote. During that debate two weeks ago, we had agreed fundamentally on the need for regulatory justification and he was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition, yet when it came to the deferred Division in this House a week ago today three of the most senior members of the shadow Cabinet voted against those reactor designs being approved. If they had won that debate, the whole nuclear programme in this country would have been brought to a standstill. If the Opposition are to have credibility in this area, we need to understand why the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Business Secretary, who is the one who will lead on issues relating to Sheffield Forgemasters, and the shadow Education Secretary, who is one of the most senior members of the Labour party, chose to try to stop nuclear power in its tracks.

Stewart Jackson: Is the stark contrast between those on the two sides of the House not shown in the fact that the financing arrangements for Sheffield Forgemasters were cobbled together in the dying weeks of the Labour Government whereas just five months into a Conservative-led coalition Government we have a comprehensive, coherent national infrastructure plan for the next five to 10 years? That is the difference between government and opportunism.

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the months just before the election an enormous number of commitments were made, and one of the first things that we had to do as an incoming Government was to identify which of them were affordable. We went through that process extremely thoroughly-I think we have been robust about it-and Sheffield Forgemasters entirely understands the decisions that we have made. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills leads on supporting businesses in these areas and my Department feeds closely into that process. We want Sheffield Forgemasters, which is an outstanding example of a British manufacturing company, to have a key role to play in the future. However, on the basis that I have outlined, we did not believe it was appropriate for the loan to go ahead.

John Woodcock: I hope the Minister will accept that it is important to correct what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said if the Government are to retain credibility on this issue. Does the Minister accept that the issue of this loan was being negotiated for more than a year, including the time when Lord Hutton was Business Secretary, and that it was very carefully considered by that Department over that period?

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a new Government coming in, we had to look at the financial commitments that we were inheriting. We had to decide which were bad decisions-the Sheffield Forgemasters loan absolutely did not come into that category-and which were the decisions we viewed as simply not affordable. Of course we would love to be able to shower money on a range of good projects around the country, but there is no scope for doing so. As we know from the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, there was no money left. That was what the outgoing Government told us.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Charles Hendry: I am keen to get back to some of the areas where there is consent and general agreement, but I will of course give way to the Opposition spokesman.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he acknowledge that this issue is pertinent to our debate on our national infrastructure and the supply chain? It is my clear understanding, unless the Minister can disabuse me of this, that only one other global supplier makes the piece that Sheffield Forgemasters was going to make. If the company had been given that repayable loan, which would have been repaid to the Government in short order, it would have led the global supply chain-not just for the UK but for export-in the reactors that we passed the justification orders for last week. It is a clear own goal. I ask the Minister to go back to his BIS and Treasury colleagues to see whether there is still an opportunity to bring the measure forward. It is not too late.

Charles Hendry: The hole in the argument is that the hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance is fundamentally questionable.

Albert Owen: rose-

Charles Hendry: I am keen to move on to other issues, but as the hon. Gentleman has such a strong constituency interest in new nuclear I shall give way.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman and I were both very solid on nuclear power in the last Parliament when the then Leader of the Opposition thought that it should be a last resort. I am pleased that the new Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made their journey and are in the same position as the Minister and I. The point about the supply chain is important. I know-the shadow spokesman is right-that if this work does not go ahead in Sheffield, Korea is the next port of call. That is not in the British interest. Will the Minister consider that as we go through these new policies and talk about infrastructure, so that we can keep British jobs and British business in the supply chain to help the nuclear industry?

Charles Hendry: I have said several times that our decision is no reflection on the quality of the workmanship at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Government came in, identified that £1 in every £4 of Government spending was borrowed, believed that that position was unsustainable and had to make difficult, tough choices about the right way forward.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Charles Hendry: I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but he was the one who made me depart from my extremely consensual speech into this area of great contention. I am keen that we should get on to the issues of planning policy that are at the heart of our debate.

Dan Byles: To come back to the future of nuclear power in the UK and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about keeping the lights on, Germany is now considering extending the lives of its reactors by up to 12 years. I am a great supporter of the idea that we need to replace our nuclear reactors with new nuclear reactors, but is there any scope in the Department's plan to extend the lives of our current reactors to try to bridge that gap?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The situation in Germany is very different from the situation here. The plan in Germany had been to have an artificially early closure of the nuclear fleet, and Chancellor Merkel's Government have allowed them to operate for their full lives. They have reversed a decision that would have brought about early closure. The approach that we have always taken in the United Kingdom is that plants should operate for their safe life. If there is an independent assessment that they can operate for longer than had been planned, that should be considered. The case here is based on safety and security issues and some recent life extensions have been given, which we welcome. At the end of the day the extensions are a bonus rather than a building block in energy policy, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I want to get back to some of the key areas of the debate. Our concern is that the existing market framework will not deliver the scale of investment needed in renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, all of which have significant up-front costs. Our electricity market reform programme will examine the reforms necessary to restructure the electricity market to decarbonise the power sector by the 2030s while maintaining security of supply and affordable prices. We must move quickly to give investors certainty about our reforms because of the long lead-times in developing new generation capacity. Our reform of the planning system for major infrastructure, including for major energy infrastructure, also has an important role, as does the consultation on the revised draft energy national policy statements.
	Reducing demand for electricity wherever possible is important in meeting our energy objectives. Our 2050 pathways analysis shows that total UK energy demand from all sources will need to fall significantly by 2050. As I have mentioned, the green deal will save energy in the home and non-domestic buildings. We will also roll out smart meters to help to reduce demand. However, those savings will be offset by increases in other areas, such as the increased use of electricity in industrial and domestic heating and in transport. Our 2050 pathways analysis suggests that demand for electricity may even double by 2050, as we plug into the grid to power our cars and heat our homes.
	Decarbonising surface transport is essential to meet our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, as we are required to do by law. We expect electrification to play a major role in achieving that. While electric vehicles can be powered up overnight by fluctuating electricity generation, trains, for example, will need more base load generation. We have already announced £900 million of investment in the electrification of train lines from London to Didcot, Newbury and Oxford, and for lines serving Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool. In the new year, we will consult on the next steps for building a national high-speed rail network, which will free up capacity to allow a shift of freight from road to rail and provide an attractive low-carbon option for travelling between our major cities.
	Some 80% of journeys in the UK are currently made by car, and cars will continue to play an essential part in our national transport infrastructure. The Government announced in the spending review investment of more than £400 million in measures to promote the uptake of ultra-low-carbon vehicle technologies. That includes the plug-in car grant, which will be available from January 2011 and which will provide a grant of 25% of the vehicle price up to £5,000. We are also continuing the plugged-in places programme, which supports the development of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure in strategic locations. As part of the coalition agreement, we have also undertaken to mandate a national network of vehicle recharging facilities.
	We want to see more decentralised and community energy systems, such as microgeneration, make a contribution to our targets on reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy security. However, we do not believe that decentralised and community energy systems are likely to lead to the significant replacement of large-scale energy infrastructure, which is why there is an urgent need for new major energy infrastructure.

Neil Carmichael: I have flicked through the plans, and I cannot see any reference to hydro-power in the context of micro-schemes. Do the Government intend to support hydro-power and particularly small-scale projects?

Charles Hendry: The Government are committed to taking us forward, and I welcome my hon. Friend's support in that respect. Hydro has an important contribution to make. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who has responsibility for climate change, set out how we can hope to achieve that ambition in his recent speech on the subject. Most issues that we are discussing today relate to major applications of more than 50 MW. Most hydro schemes will fall below that threshold and will therefore be subject to local planning decisions.
	The section of the energy policy statement that deals with renewable energy does not cover major hydro schemes, such as major schemes involving tidal flow, because at this stage there is no evidence of a serious application for such a scheme of more than 50 MW. If that happens, we will need either to review the national policy statement or to introduce one specifically for marine technologies. In this country, we have a network of rivers, which are a potential source for electricity generation that we are keen to see harnessed.

Ian Swales: The Minister has discussed the urgent need for new renewable electricity generation capacity. If that is the case, why is the banding review of renewables not reporting until August 2012 with implementation in March 2013? Will he consider speeding up that process, so that we can get the capital that is waiting for, for example, biomass power stations released and get such projects under way?

Charles Hendry: One of the issues for investors in this area is certainty. They want to be able to plan for the long term and to know what rate of support they will get under whatever mechanism is in place. A date of 2013 enables people to plan a transition to whatever the banded level will be after that. I understand the need for early clarity, and if there are ways we can provide that, we shall seek to do so. We seek to work constructively because we understand that the alternative can be a hiatus in investment, with investment dropping off for a period of years in advance of the threshold and the level of support changing. It is important, in terms of national interest, to have a continuous flow of investment.
	I turn now to the issues that have been covered in the energy national policy statements. Perhaps it would be helpful if I briefly set out the purpose of the documents before us today. The revised draft energy national policy statements consist of a suite of six national policy statements and a number of associated documents. They are not intended to set out new energy policy. They are consistent with and explain current energy policy and how it relates to the planning consent process. Similarly, we are not using national policy statements to change the standard for consenting projects. They neither raise nor lower the bar on how a major energy infrastructure project is examined and consented. They are there to explain how such decisions should be made. They set out the consenting policies that need to be considered in the examination of major energy infrastructure and the decision on whether to grant or decline consent. At the same time, they will ensure that new major energy infrastructure projects respect the principles of sustainable development. They will allow not only the Infrastructure Planning Commission but developers and local residents to see the basis on which applications must be considered.
	There is an overarching energy national policy statement that sets out the Government's policy on energy and energy infrastructure development; an energy need statement on the need for new nationally significant energy infrastructure projects; the assessment principles that need to be taken into account in examining and deciding on proposals for energy infrastructure development; and generic impacts for all energy infrastructure, and how they should be assessed and mitigated to ensure that the right balance is reached between securing our energy needs and protecting the environment.
	There are also five technology-specific energy national policy statements, covering fossil fuel electricity generation; renewable energy infrastructure, which deals with onshore wind, offshore wind and energy from biomass and/or waste; gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines; electricity networks infrastructure; and nuclear power generation.

David Morris: We know that we are legally required to reduce carbon emissions by about 80% in the next 40 years. Can we fulfil that requirement, given that of the 59 GW of new capacity required in the next 25 years, 33 GW of which is needed from renewables, we have only 2 GW currently under construction? The other 26 GW that is needed will, presumably, come from low-carbon nuclear. The Government have made enormous progress in this area-I acknowledge that-but would there be more scope to look at nuclear if we, for whatever reason, did not hit those targets?

Charles Hendry: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done as an ardent supporter of the Heysham plant in his constituency and of the case for a new plant in that area. The role for nuclear has been set out clearly in the national policy statements. We believe that it has a fundamental role, but we also have to be realistic about what is achievable. We have identified sites that could be used for 16 GW of new nuclear power, but that is as much as the energy companies believe can be constructed over the next 15 years, which is the time scale that the national policy statements cover. That is not necessarily the end of the ambition, but it looks like what is achievable and realisable over those 15 years. There is no doubt about the Government's ambition in terms of new nuclear.

Martin Horwood: On the subject of what is realistic, and referring back to what the Minister was saying about sustainability, is he aware that the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management has said that current known reserves of economically extractable uranium may last only between 40 and 85 years? Given that other economies are also investing in new nuclear, we may be looking at the lower end of that scale rather than the higher, so new nuclear cannot be regarded as sustainable in any real sense.

Charles Hendry: I have certainly heard that point before. The OECD has a fundamentally different view of the availability of uranium stocks, and there is work to be done in plutonium reprocessing, which would provide an additional source of fuel. Furthermore, work is being done on the development of thorium reactors, which do not give rise to many of the concerns that people have about uranium reactors. A great deal of progress can be made and, at the end of the day, the decision is for investors to make. If they do not believe that there is sufficient uranium to power their plants for their lifetime, they will not make that investment. They will base their decision on the facts available to them and they will need to be reassured about the availability of stocks.
	The overarching national policy statement contains information on the impacts that need to be considered for all energy infrastructure, while the technology-specific NPSs contain additional information on the impacts that are specific to each technology. They take into account the appraisals of sustainability. We have revised the AOSs for the non-nuclear NPSs substantially, which is why we are a carrying out a fresh consultation.
	We believe that the revised appraisals put readers in a much better position to evaluate the revised draft NPSs. The revised AOSs give a clear picture of the likely significant impacts at the strategic level of consenting energy infrastructure projects in accordance with the NPSs, by reference to a wide range of relevant environmental, social and economic factors. They also explain more clearly why we have not chosen a number of alternative policies that others proposed, but which would not have been as good in meeting our overall objectives of maintaining safe, secure and affordable energy supplies while moving to a low carbon economy and reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
	We have made significant changes to the statement of need in the overarching national policy statement. It now includes research that was not available for the first draft, including more detailed analysis of scenarios to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. We have also included more detail on what is required for an economic feasibility assessment to ensure that fossil fuel generating stations are carbon capture-ready.

Neil Carmichael: The NPS gives great support to those of us who support a green investment bank because it provides a framework for investment, which is necessary to the platform of support that investors might require. How important does the Minister think the green investment bank will be in delivering some of the outcomes?

Charles Hendry: The Government have committed £1 billion to the green investment bank, with additional funding to follow in due course. I am extremely pleased that the Environmental Audit Committee is to examine how the bank might work. Infrastructure banks in other countries-for example, the one in Holland, which was funded with €2 billion of initial capital, but brought in €100 billion of additional finance-can play a critical role, particularly in getting business through the so-called valley of death.
	Returning to the technology-specific NPSs, we have revised the fossil fuels policy statement-document No. 2-to clarify the requirements for carbon capture readiness in terms of technical and economic feasibility in line with the request made by the Energy and Climate Change Committee.

Ian Lavery: On carbon capture and storage, will new applications for gas-fired power stations be treated the same as applications for new coal-fired power stations in that they will have to be carbon capture-ready before they can be accepted at the planning stage?

Charles Hendry: A new coal plant will have to be equipped with some degree of carbon capture and storage capability-we have made it clear that there will be no role for unabated coal in the future-whereas a new gas plant will have to be carbon capture-ready, because of the much lower levels of emissions associated with modern gas plants. Emissions from the most efficient coal plant are perhaps 750 grams per kWh, whereas the figure for the most sophisticated gas plant is perhaps 350 grams per kWh. Given the significant difference in emission levels, we are looking at requiring CCS to be part of the programme. That is why we have allocated £1 billion, which is more than any Government anywhere in the world have allocated to a single plant. We are keen to take forward the development, but we have also said that as part of the subsequent pilot projects 2 to 4, we are keen to see whether that can be applied to gas.

Ian Lavery: The Minister said that £1 billion had been invested in the carbon capture and storage programme. There were four initial demonstration plants, the first of which is to be a coal-fired demonstration plant. The contract will be awarded, I believe, in December 2011. Will that not take most of the £1 billion? If so, is he confident that moneys will be available to secure the phase 2, 3 and 4 carbon capture and storage projects?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The £1 billion is specifically and only for that project. As I said, that is more than any Government anywhere in the world have allocated to a single project. The additional plants will be funded either by the levy introduced in the Energy Act 2010, or from general taxation. We are looking at the best way forward in terms of deliverability and the Treasury is examining the issue. The funding of projects 2 to 4 is separate from the funding of project 1, which has the £1 billion available to it.
	The revised renewables NPS has taken particular account of comments on biomass sustainability for generating stations using biomass as fuel. We have also revised the text regarding noise from onshore wind farms, which is different from general industrial noise, so a specific assessment methodology is used to take that into account.
	The method of assessing noise from a wind farm is described in "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms", known as ETSU-R-97. The report recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity of those living close to wind farms. The recommended noise levels are determined by a combination of absolute noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing background noise levels around the site at different wind speeds.
	Policy document 4 relates to gas supply and oil pipelines. We have clarified that the gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines NPS covers only oil and natural gas pipelines and not CO2 pipelines, which will be an important matter in relation to carbon capture and storage development. We have also added a new section describing the impacts on gas emissions due to the flaring or venting of gas.
	Policy paper 5 relates to electricity networks. We have tried to make sure that Government policy on undergrounding and the need to treat each application case by case is expressed more clearly. I welcome the decision by the Institute of Engineering and Technology to make an authoritative investigation of the costs of undergrounding, particularly in relation to the issues that the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has raised, so that we can have a clear fact-based assessment of the different costs involved.

Tessa Munt: rose -

Charles Hendry: I thought that might encourage the hon. Lady.

Tessa Munt: Thank you. Will that investigation examine the cost of under-sea infrastructure as well? I understand that the project will look at networks not just underground, but under-sea. Is that correct?

Charles Hendry: That is my understanding of the report. We are all keen to have a fact-based scientific assessment of the relative costs. I know that in the hon. Lady's constituency and many others there has been great concern and a need to know the costs of different ways of dealing with the issues, so I hope the report will examine the under-sea aspects as well.

Tessa Munt: rose-

Therese Coffey: rose -

Charles Hendry: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who has some issues in Suffolk.

Therese Coffey: Thank you. We do indeed have issues in East Anglia, and in Suffolk in particular. We have an enormous number of offshore wind farms, yet the green impact of pylons across our countryside is hardly palatable. I welcome the changes being made, and hope that we will have more detailed calculations of the costs and the impact of the benefits.

Charles Hendry: I shall give way again to the hon. Member for Wells and deal with both issues together.

Tessa Munt: How can I and my constituents be assured that the study is wholly independent and is not in any way informed or directed by National Grid?

Charles Hendry: I would hope that the nature of the Institute of Engineering and Technology, and its track record for independence and fact-based assessment, would be sufficient to assure everyone that a thorough approach will be taken. There is no doubt in any of our minds that if anybody tried to steer its conclusions one way or the other it would publicly require them to go away. I am absolutely satisfied that the process will be independent and robust, but in due course the institute will publish the full report so that it can be peer-reviewed.

Alan Whitehead: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves EN-5, will he reflect on the question that he raised previously about investment in new infrastructure through the electricity markets as they stood, and the extent to which that investment stayed in existing equipment to shore up the electricity market? In the new circumstances, where investment in infrastructure will increasingly be required before the replacement of plant, will EN-5 reflect that change fully? If not, could the energy market reforms that he will undertake shortly inform a revision of EN-5 to take those new circumstances into account?

Charles Hendry: We have to see the national policy statements as part of the process. They are an integral part of an improved planning process, but they are not the full package. Electricity market reform will also be a key element in incentivising people to invest. Let me give an example of how things are changing. I was recently with Ofgem launching the second round of offshore grid transmission infrastructure bids. More than 100 different organisations, most of which were new players in this area, were keen to take part in that process, which was started by the previous Administration. A number of new organisations-new financial institutions-want to invest in our energy infrastructure, which is extremely encouraging, but to see the full package of these measures it will be necessary to ensure that they see the planning changes and the funding mechanisms that will drive it forward.

Andrew Percy: rose-

Charlie Elphicke: rose-

Charles Hendry: I shall take a couple of interventions and then seek to conclude my remarks.

Andrew Percy: While we are on the subject of new players coming into our energy industry, I invite the Minister to visit north Lincolnshire and the site of the South Humber Gateway project, where we hope to cluster a number of offshore wind farm manufacturers with the potential to create 5,000 jobs initially, possibly rising to 20,000. It will be incredibly important to our region, so I invite the Minister to join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on a visit some time soon.

Charles Hendry: I know that both my hon. Friends have done sterling work in pushing the case for the South Humber Gateway. I would be delighted to see the planned work to get a clearer understanding of the ambition. It is typical of many of the ambitions of people who see a fantastic new opportunity emerging in the energy sector, and we are keen to encourage that. I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) will make a similar plea for a visit.

Charlie Elphicke: I do not wish to trouble the Minister to come down to east Kent, but for the benefit of the House will he say how many power stations were brought into operation during the last Parliament? The only one that we in Kent can recall is the dirty Kingsnorth power station. On the need for more funding and the need to build infrastructure and green infrastructure, I recall that during the last Parliament not many power stations were brought on line.

Charles Hendry: A number of gas powered plants were brought on stream. The last nuclear power station was Sizewell in the 1990s. There has not been a new clean coal plant yet because people need to know how the carbon abatement technology will move forward. Gas has been the fuel of choice: 60% of the consented plant-12 out of 20 GW-is gas. What people want to build remains to be seen, but there is significant interest. We now need the policies to drive this forward.
	I want rapidly to conclude my remarks with a few additional points-

Christopher Pincher: rose -

Charles Hendry: An enormous number of colleagues are keen to speak in the debate, but with your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene as he is a member of the Select Committee.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous. May I take him back to his earlier remarks about energy security and how the national policy statements will feed into our energy security? Energy security not only relates to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but has an impact on the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Department for Transport. How do the threads in our national policy statements interweave to ensure that across all those Departments we have a holistic approach to energy security?

Charles Hendry: One thing that has struck and impressed me most as an incoming Minister has been the extent to which Departments work constructively together, with information shared appropriately and buy-in from every Department on policy proposals. My Department clearly leads on the energy market and the Treasury is critically involved in setting a carbon price, which we believe is part of the process, but there is a holistic approach and investors are looking at that to make sure that there is joined-up government.
	I want to close, so perhaps I can respond in my winding-up speech to any additional points about the exact way in which we will take the process forward. Having spoken for the best part of an hour, I feel that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to have a chance to contribute fully to the debate.
	In conclusion, our reforms of the major infrastructure planning process will ensure much greater democratic accountability. Ministers will be responsible for decisions to consent to or refuse major infrastructure development, and there will be a binding vote in the House on whether to approve national policy statements. Our debate today is about whether the House has considered the matter of the draft energy national policy statements, and I look forward to listening to it and having the chance to hear the expertise that so many hon. Members have to offer.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. As the Minister says, a number of Members will be trying to catch my eye during this debate. Therefore, I am introducing a seven-minute limit on speeches.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have indicated to you through the usual channels that, if it is your wish, I am more than happy to forgo any concluding remarks so that more people have time to make their contributions.
	I welcome this general debate about national policy statements, which is timely and necessary. I thank the Energy and Climate Change Committee for its continuing effort and expertise and, of course, the Committee on Climate Change for its recommendations and analysis. We share much of the Minister's analysis of the challenges, but that is not surprising because, as I say with some humility, my predecessors laid the groundwork that he is continuing. We are glad to see him and his colleagues taking up the baton with such relish, because they do so at a critical juncture, when delay and dithering would be terminal to investor certainty, UK energy security and our low-carbon future. There is a real need to get on with that work.
	On that thought, the shadow Front-Bench team and I-and I am sure the whole House-send our best wishes to the Secretary of State and his team on their negotiations in Cancun. In government, Labour adopted the world's first legally binding framework to cut emissions, by 80% by 2050, signalling our clear intent and leadership on tackling climate change. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) played a difficult hand with some great skill and not insignificant personal commitment at Copenhagen when he was Secretary of State, and although the job has not become any easier, we hope that the new Secretary of State will keep the momentum going.
	Let us reprise where we are, as laid out in the documents before us. One quarter of the UK's generating capacity will close by 2018, and as much as 30% will need to be replaced by 2020. Without prompt action we face an electricity generation gap in the next 10 to 15 years as our nuclear and coal-powered stations are retired. World energy demand is rising and often highly politicised; as North sea reserves decline, we are increasingly reliant on imported oil and gas; and, as the Minister says, electricity demand is forecast to double over the next 40 years. That will require rapid decarbonisation of the electricity sector, diversification of the energy sector with a decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and unabated combustion, and an increasing reliance on renewables, low-carbon energy and decentralised energy.
	We will also require development of carbon capture and storage and renewables technology for the UK and for international markets. We will need to create sufficient capacity to meet electricity generation needs at all times, and we will need to put the necessary supply chains in place. I will not go over the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters again, as it has been well aired already. We will require the development of smart grid and electricity networks to meet the needs of a reconfigured, smart and diverse electricity infrastructure and, of course, investment in gas infrastructure.

Ian Lavery: The doubling of the electricity recovery rate over the next 40 years is vital. As was mentioned, the first phase of the four demonstration plants will cost up to £1 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that funding is found from somewhere to fund phases 2, 3 and 4 if we are to meet our electricity requirements over that period?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I agree entirely. It was wonderful news that after a slight delay to do with the coalition agreement, getting things in order, and some wrangling with the Treasury, we had the announcement that £1 billion would be available-the commitment that the Labour Government had made to the first phase of CCS on a commercial scale. However, it is equally essential that we have phases 2, 3 and 4. I am sure that the Minister is committed to continuing that wrangling with the Treasury to ensure that we find the mechanisms that will allow that to happen, and promptly. We need it for coal, but we also need it for gas. I welcome the in-principle announcements that have been made about phases 2, 3 and 4, but what we are waiting for, as with so much else, is the detail to make it certain.

Angie Bray: Given that the previous Government had a complete lack of policy on energy, threatening constituents such as mine with the possibility of their lights being switched off for long periods in the next 10 years or so, I find it a bit rich that the hon. Gentleman is lecturing us somewhat, although I appreciate the consensus on some issues. Does he at least agree that the national policy statements brought forward by this coalition Government are a great step forward in attracting the kind of investment that we need to ensure that the lights are left on?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, we can debate who can claim credit for the NPSs. Of course, they were instigated and developed under the last Labour Government, but I give credit where it is due; I will come to that in a moment in looking at some of the detail. We agree that there has been some improvement in the intervening six months-it will be nine months by the time they are eventually signed off-but they were in darn good shape before, and they were ready to go. The hon. Lady pushed me on trying to claim the credit entirely, but these are the Labour Government's documents. They have been refined and improved, but they were already in place.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me make a tiny bit of progress.
	This short debate is informed by the ongoing consultation-or perhaps I should say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), reconsultation-on the national policy statements. The coalition Government have taken this opportunity to pause, to reflect, and to revise them. In a way, that is a good thing, because it has allowed more time for deliberation, but-let us be frank-it will also have cost a vital eight or nine months by the time that the final NPSs are produced in January. That is a luxury that has inevitably led to a delay in our national efforts to secure a long-term energy security future.

Nicky Morgan: Is it not the case, though, that the report by the Energy and Climate Change Committee criticised the previous Government for leaving it quite so long to get to the stage where the NPSs were being considered? It published its report in March 2010, when the Government had had from 2005 onwards to put them in place.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Lady will have noticed that between March 2010 and now an election got in the way. The national policy statements were in place, and this Government, had they so chosen, could have picked them up and run with them, or alternatively, as happened when we came into office in 1997 and had our policies ready to go having worked them up with the civil service, they could have got on with it straight away. We will be nine months delayed by the time we have these documents before the House for full consideration.

Therese Coffey: rose-

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will make a little progress.
	Although I welcome this debate, we now have only one hour and 20 minutes to debate issues that, as I am sure the Minister will agree, are critical to our national strategic energy needs and to the balance between those needs and democratic accountability at national and local levels. Unlike the over-long process of reconsultation, this short debate demonstrates all speed, but limited accountability. It will therefore be impossible to do justice to the six core energy documents and the accompanying materials. This must be seen instead as a useful staging post to a much longer debate in this place in Government time.
	I will begin with some points on the reform of planning in relation to NPSs, in response to the Minister's opening remarks.

Martin Horwood: Before we leave the question of Labour's legacy, can the hon. Gentleman put a figure on the unfunded liabilities for cleaning up the last generation of nuclear power? Some estimates put it as high as £160 billion. Does that sound accurate to him?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That question should probably be put to the Minister. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long-held position on nuclear power. I pay credit to the Minister and the Government for pulling the coalition into a semblance of agreement on nuclear-albeit with the odd person against it-which means that we can move forward.
	Labour's Planning Act 2008, which underpins this matter, made the planning system for major infrastructure quicker, more efficient and much more predictable. It laid the conditions for essential new investment in the UK's infrastructure, including large-scale, low-carbon energy projects. The coalition Government have a responsibility to ensure that their plans, which include scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission, do not add delays or remove the clarity and certainty that industry needs to invest in new renewable and nuclear capacity, and low-carbon energy. I give credit to the coalition Government and the Minister, because they have wisely decided, despite the unnecessary delay, to continue with the Labour Government's national policy statements, with the revisions, rather than wait for wholesale reform of the planning system. That is a welcome recognition of the excellent work of the Labour Ministers who formerly occupied the Minister's office and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent about the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Can he therefore explain why the Public Accounts Committee, when it reviewed the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that it lacked a definite sense of energy and purpose under the now Leader of the Opposition?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The ball is now firmly in the court of the Minister. There is an issue with the urgency and delivery of some the Government's ambitions that we share. They must get on with it.
	Rather than take further interventions, I will get into the nitty-gritty. Some of my questions for the Minister arise from his appearance yesterday before the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which, as usual, did a very good job.
	When we return to this matter with the finished articles in front of us-the final, beautifully honed, polished NPSs-will we be afforded adequate time? Will each national policy statement have adequate, separate parliamentary time in line with the coalition Government's stated aim of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs in their planning reforms, or will they be mixed together like a bag of all-sorts? If the coalition Government are true to their aims, the Minister should help us through the usual channels to push for days, not hours, to debate the NPSs. Much as we dearly love the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government-we may ask who would not do so, when he is described on the front page of his website as "an absolute star" and a "saintly figure", among other less self-effacing and more humorous things-when it comes to debating energy NPSs, we want the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), or the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. We want them-no one else will do. Can the Minister guarantee that he and his DECC colleagues will not be squeezed out of their seats by the right hon. and saintly Member for Brentwood and Ongar?
	In the coalition's drive for parliamentary scrutiny, I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm today that there will be a separate vote on each NPS, having been unable to confirm it yesterday to the Energy and Climate Change Committee. To mix the nuclear issue with those of fossil fuels, renewables, pipelines and the electricity network infrastructure would tax the wit of Wilde and the wisdom of Solomon. For us mere mortals, will he make representations through the usual channels to ensure that the votes are separate?
	Will the Minister explain to the House why he has set against the calls to make an NPS amendable? We understand that there will be a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It would be interesting to hear the justification for taking scrutiny so far but no further. He might have a very strong rationale for that position, such as wanting to avoid the unpicking of an NPS that has been through exhaustive consultation, but we need to hear it.
	There is a more fundamental point to be made about the parliamentary scrutiny of the NPSs, which goes to the very heart of the planning reforms that the Government are developing. The argument advanced by the coalition is that democratic accountability is best assured by laying the NPSs in front of the House and making a Minister, hopefully this Minister, answerable for them. In fact, he said back in June:
	"A fast and efficient planning system is critical for facilitating investment in much needed new energy infrastructure. By abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will ensure that vital energy planning decisions are democratically accountable."
	His colleague the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), went further, saying:
	"Today the coalition is remedying those deficiencies by putting in place a new fast track process where the people's elected representatives have responsibility for the final decisions about Britain's future instead of unelected commissioners."
	Yet we understand that for the Minister, the consideration of the NPSs is a quasi-judicial decision. He has described it as such. Ministers, formerly myself included, are used to making quasi-judicial decisions and are made aware of the very strict limitations that bind them. His decision is strictly limited, involves the application of policy to a particular set of facts and requires the exercise of discretion and the application of the principles of natural justice. It is not a prescription for localism, political interference or ministerial hokey-cokey. It is about policy and facts.
	May we safely assume that the NPSs, once presented to the House by the Minister in January, will be a fait accompli? May we assume that he will have satisfied himself, in a quasi-judicial role, that the NPSs presented are fit for purpose? He will listen to fellow MPs, but his mind will be made up. On that basis, will he tell us, first, what is the point of putting the NPSs to the House if they represent his full and final view? Secondly, if he has a mind to amend them, what specific examples can he give that would cause him to change his quasi-judicial view and alter the documents, and what further time delay would ensue?

Charles Hendry: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman after my own comments went on for quite a while, but I wonder whether I can provide clarity on that issue now. The quasi-judicial aspect relates to a ministerial decision on a planning application, not to the approach taken to the national policy statements themselves. We are in the course of a three-month consultation, which will finish on 24 January. There will quite possibly be amendments to the NPSs after that, which will be in the final version put before the House for debate, assessment and a vote. We do not have a quasi-judicial capacity in that respect. My comments about acting in a quasi-judicial capacity related to ministerial decision making on individual planning applications under the rules set out in the NPSs.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but will he clarify two things? Has he just said that NPSs will be amendable on the Floor of the House. He will sign off and present NPSs to the House, but will he sign them in a quasi-judicial role, or will he perform such a role only in respect of individual planning applications?

Charles Hendry: There is confusion between the approval process for NPSs and the role that Ministers will take in respect of individual planning decisions when the IPC has been abolished. On individual planning decisions, Ministers will act in a quasi-judicial capacity, but on NPSs, a revised consultation period to take account of the initial representations-we felt that improvements needed to be made-will end in January. If further revisions are necessary, a document will be put to the House for its final consideration and approval.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Is the Minister suggesting that the final document will be amendable and subject to a decision by the House, as I think I heard him say from a sedentary position? It would be helpful if he could clarify that, because we are talking about significant decisions over the future energy needs of this country. It is important that the House knows whether it is voting on a batch of NPSs or on each one individually and for how long they will be debated. It is also important that the House knows whether it has the ability to amend NPSs. If so, would that cause delays? My assumption is that if the House changes any individual NPS, it will need further consideration and possibly consultation. The Minister's officials would certainly become involved, and relevant stakeholders would need to be consulted. There would be a minimum of 13 weeks' consultation, as recommended by civil service guidelines, but possibly a heck of a lot more. It would be helpful to get some clarity on those issues before we debate NPSs.

Charlie Elphicke: Speaking of clarity, can the shadow Minister explain why we are threatened with the lights going out in 2015? Should he and his party not apologise for that shocking situation?

Huw Irranca-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking apologies, may I suggest that he starts by knocking on the door of No. 10? He should ask the Prime Minister why it took so long for him to move from a position of equivocation on nuclear new build to a position of indifference. Following Labour's leadership, the Prime Minister finally rowed in behind on the need for nuclear new build. The five-year hiatus to which the Minister referred happened, as someone remarked earlier, because there was no appetite in the country or among the body politic to move forward on new nuclear. We showed leadership; certain individuals rowed in behind, but it took them a long time to do so.
	For the sake of taxpayers, who are always in the mind of the coalition Government, will the Minister tell us what he knows about the cost of abolishing the IPC? What are the costs of the transition to the new major infrastructure unit within the planning inspectorate? Will there be savings for the taxpayer, and if so, will he or the Government publish those figures after the debate?
	In the absence of the much anticipated localism Bill, where in the reformed process does localism rear its lovely head? Will the Minister explain how parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs, which represent the Minister's opinion on the strategic needs of the UK, allows for localism? If the answer to that question is not in the Government's response and if we will not be told in January, where is it?
	What is the expected lifespan of NPSs? I ask that for a very good reason. The Minister recently spoke with clarity and purpose at a meeting of the World Coal Association, which I was pleased to attend, and made a bold prediction. He said with certainty that next spring, he would draw a line in the sand on his forthcoming decisions on a range of market mechanisms and incentives, including electricity market reforms, carbon floor-pricing, emissions performance standards, capacity payments and so on. The NPSs are part of that line in the sand, giving investors certainty for years ahead, yet they do not stand alone. There are so many "What ifs?", and the Minister has to take these into account-it is like multi-dimensional chess.
	I know that the Government do not particularly like the idea of school sport, as we discovered yesterday, but the Minister has been indulging in his favourite sport with his ministerial colleagues-an extreme sport known as Treasury-wrangling. After some delay, he came out with a partial win, announcing the first stage of commercial CCS-carbon capture and storage-which has delivered, after a slight delay of six months, the first part of Labour's commitment to CCS. We look forward to him rapidly bringing forward not only that pilot, but the three others, including a pilot on gas CCS. However, may I urge-or should it be "nudge", in the Government's new lexicon?-the Minister to get on with that pronto? He has honestly and publicly acknowledged that there is no future for coal in the UK unless that technology is made to work. However, there is also a global imperative, as developing nations rush towards their own coal-powered futures. As such, this Government must avoid any further delay on the complete CCS programme of work.
	However, what if CCS on a commercial scale does not work? What if there are delays because of cost, lack of funds or complexity, or because the technology to bring it forward is not available on time, or even not at all? We all want CCS to succeed-we all say that it has to succeed-and we are full of hope that it will, both for UK energy security and abating the global exploitation of fossil fuels. However, a reasonable man-and a reasonable Minister-cannot just assume that that will happen, and must therefore make contingency plans.

Martin Horwood: Given that carbon capture and storage technology has been in use on a commercial scale in the United States for some 40 years-albeit not on the same scale as that envisaged for the power stations in question-what does the hon. Gentleman imagine the technical barriers will be?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to say that I am not an engineer, but that is exactly the point behind the large-scale commercial CCS pilots. That is exactly why we are running them, and we all hope that CCS will work. Indeed, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's confidence that it definitely will work. However, there are some nagging "What ifs?". What if CCS is not delivered on time, or cannot happen because of the technology, the scale or the investment?
	In my short time in this post, I have come to realise that the Minister's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), positively exudes enthusiasm. Indeed, he leaves a trail of enthusiasm wherever he goes, and for every conceivable energy source. His enthusiasm is demonstrated in photo-ops around the country and around the world, but what if the latest enthusiasm for decentralised energy, which the Minister mentioned, and combined heat and power is not realised, because the electricity grid is not smart enough to make it work locally or because the right incentives are not in place, or for other reasons?
	I have a final "What if?" for the Minister: the nuclear "What if?". He has been categorical in recent days-heroically categorical-that new build nuclear is on schedule for 2017-18. Yet he knows that the Health and Safety Executive will not be issuing final certificates next year on the two designs that this House has taken through in the past few days through justification orders, but will instead issue interim certificates. There is more work to be done on the designs and, equally importantly, the build speed of new nuclear, as evidenced by delays internationally, in Europe, the US and Asia.
	The coalition Government have struggled to come to terms with their identity crisis on nuclear-do they love it or hate it, and will they unequivocally support it or sit on the fence-but the Minister deserves some credit for helping his Lib Dem comrades down off the fence. However, the industry still waits for the long-term certainty of market signals that will bring forward the investment at all, let alone on time. So, there are "What ifs?" on nuclear, decentralised energy and CCS, as well as on other things, if only we had the time to discuss them in this short debate.

Martin Horwood: rose -

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not take another intervention because there are other people waiting to speak.
	Meanwhile, part 3 of the overarching energy policy statement details new electricity projections. It outlines the need for 59 GW of new capacity by 2025, of which as much as 33 GW will be from renewables, thus leaving a significant potential gap, on top of the energy gap that we already acknowledge, if the Minister's best laid plans do not come to fruition. This raises the question of how the Minister can avoid re-carbonising instead of de-carbonising the energy sector if an unabated dash for expensive imported gas rushes in to fill the looming energy gap. The dash for gas and the energy gap could be made far worse if any of the "what ifs" were to happen. The Minister has honestly and openly accepted that gas will form part of our journey to a de-carbonised future, but how will he ensure that we do not stumble into a new generation of unabated gas use by default?
	As a former Minister, I recognise the problem of dealing with highly complex issues and scenario planning. I therefore ask the Minister to share with the House his scenario planning and risk analysis for the energy market, before we come to debate the national policy statements in detail on the Floor of the House in January. If there is to be real democratic accountability, the House needs to see the complete assumptions on which the Minister is making his case for the NPSs and for the energy market underpinning them. We assume that these have been done. If nuclear, CCS, decentralised energy or a whole host of other variables were delayed or undeliverable, what is plan B, plan C or plan D, and would any of them allow us still to reach our aims on energy security and low carbon energy?
	In that regard, what is the Minister's response to the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, in response to the proposals for national policy statements on energy, that the Government act on the Committee's proposal that the widely accepted concept of fully de-carbonising the electricity sector by 2030 should be made explicit in Government policy and NPSs? It has been widely accepted anyway, and it would drive the achievement of the 2050 targets on greenhouse gases. The Committee asserts that making explicit that commitment would drive forward decision making on new generating capacity and give certainty to investors regarding the Government's overarching energy policy.

Dan Byles: The shadow Minister has highlighted the concern that many of the Government's plans are predicated on CCS working and on investment in nuclear coming through, and he has asked what plan B is. Can we look forward to hearing from those on his own Front Bench what their plan B would be if they were in government?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that we are committed to assisting the Government to deliver this, but to ignore the potential scenarios of not making good in any one of these areas would be to bury our head in the sand. There are real concerns that there could be delays in one of these areas, and if that were to happen, we, as a constructive Opposition would have to work jointly with the Government to fathom a way in which we could still deliver de-carbonised energy, hit our carbon reduction targets and deliver energy security and affordable energy. I have not even touched on the issues of the green deal and the green investment bank that were raised by other Members earlier. That is why we need to see the Government's working assumptions, the detail behind the Minister's development of these NPSs and, as soon as possible, the proposals for electricity market reform.
	I am pleased that the Minister is talking a lot about the intentions behind the NPSs, but we are really up against time. I know that he will once again stand up and say that that is all the fault of the previous Administration, but actually it was the previous Administration who put in the foundations for what the coalition Government are now rightly taking forward. We will look to the Government to make good, and we will be constructive in helping them, but the House and the Energy and Climate Change Committee need to be able to wrestle with the facts as well as with the broad thrust of the statements. I have spoken longer than I intended to, and I look forward to hearing the comments of other Members.

Damian Collins: We have had a tour de force from the Minister and the shadow Minister on many of the issues in the national policy statements for energy. I shall restrict my comments to an issue that affects my constituency, which is the list of suggested nuclear new build sites and, in particular, the Dungeness site. At present, there is an A station and a B station at Dungeness, and the site was included on the previous Government's original list of 11 sites to be consulted on. Before the general election, it was removed from the list after the initial stage of the consultation, and it has remained off the list of potential sites to be taken forward within the national policy statement in the draft consultation that has been presented to Parliament.
	I have already discussed the issue in debates in the House and in Westminster Hall and I do not want to go over all the ground again, but I do want to deal with some specific points raised by the draft national policy statement which may be of interest to other Members. Let me say first that I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that he has taken in the subject, for his time, and for agreeing to meet me later in the month, along with representatives of Shepway district council and Kent county council, to establish whether any progress can be made.
	I note from the draft statement that the Government consider the site of Dungeness nuclear power station to be a credible site for a new power station should the principal concerns about it be addressed during the rest of the consultation period. Those concerns lie chiefly with Natural England's objection to the development in a special protected area, a Natura 2000 reserve with a European designation. Dungeness is the only site under consideration in the initial consultation in which development would take place within a protected area. There are problems with the other sites that the Government believe can be solved, but the problems affecting Dungeness remain.
	My constituents have particular concerns. They are typical of many communities living alongside nuclear power stations who have grown used to them, and are gratefully respectful not only of the energy that they contribute but of the large amount of employment that they bring to the communities that they serve. The existing Dungeness B station brings about £20 million a year into the local economy in Romney Marsh and in my constituency. That is not to be sniffed at: it would be difficult for a community to obtain the same amount of investment from any other source.
	My constituents' concerns lie with Natural England's objections, with which the draft statement deals in some detail. The statement gives an answer, but it does not provide much further consideration that could help us to address some of those concerns. One objection is that building on the vegetated shingle at Dungeness would damage the site, and that that damage could not be mitigated. The counter-argument is that there would be a relatively small amount of development, and that a new nuclear power station would take up less than 1% of the entire protected area and thus could not be said to damage the integrity of the whole site. Natural England, however, believes that the damage will be greater, and that it will be impossible to mitigate.
	We would like to know what further study could be conducted. Some of the land that would be lost has been developed before: it is not virgin territory that has never been disturbed. Much of the area that would be disturbed by the building of a new power station was disturbed when the existing power station was built. We would like any further study to consider the areas containing flora and fauna, and the vegetation on the shingle, which is the reason for the designation. Natural England says that if that vegetation is lost, it would not come back, but in parts of the peninsula it can be seen that where vegetation has been disturbed and lost, it has grown back.
	Is a further study possible? Could it be said that Natural England's concerns are not as great as it would have us believe, and that there is room for mitigation? We would welcome some guidance, either from the Government or through the process that is taking place. At present, the response seems to be an absolute "no", although there have been a series of detailed considerations. EDF Energy, the owner of the current site, has made three presentations to the Government during the consultation, and Shepway district council has presented the Department with its own report, written by Ian Jackson. I know that those views have been considered, but we have been given no further detailed information about why they have been rejected, and we would like to know how we can make progress.
	The behaviour of Natural England raises a different concern. A view is developing among local people that Natural England is not particularly interested in the opinions of others, but is interested only in its own opinion, and that that colours its desire to extend the protected areas beyond the current Dungeness site. At the end of last month, Shepway district council passed a motion which includes the following paragraph:
	"This Council therefore rejects any need for the extension of the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area nature conservation designations. It further looks to Natural England to work with the local population and businesses to find a more collaborative and integrated approach in preference to the prescriptive approach it is currently favouring."
	We would certainly welcome that.
	Turning to the nature of the national policy statements, the site report on Dungeness states:
	"Given the nature of the issues at Dungeness, it may be easier to ascertain that there will not be adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC at the detailed project level of an application for development consent."
	My concern in that respect is that no energy company would take forward such a proposal for Dungeness if it were not included in the list of preferred sites. The Minister said to the Energy and Climate Change Committee yesterday that national policy statements
	"set the framework for major planning decisions. I think that the thoroughness with which they address those issues gives investors a significant amount of security."
	I agree; that is what the national policy statements are for. However, if a site is not included in a list, even though it can in theory be taken forward, no one will do so without a degree of certainty. I therefore wonder whether Dungeness could be included within the draft NPS, but with caveats listing the concerns of Natural England, which could then be addressed at a later stage. I would like us to be able to get to that stage first, however.

Alan Whitehead: We have a scandalously short time in which to address these issues this evening. I have calculated that if we were to stack vertically the documents we are talking about this evening-important documents fundamental to the future of our energy planning-the pile would be 7 inches high. We have therefore been allocated 21 minutes per inch of document. As I have seven minutes, I will address just one third of the documents by focusing on EN-1 and EN-5. However, I hope the powers that be will press through the usual channels for a lot more time in the Chamber to discuss these documents as they go through the consultative phase, because it is just not right that we have such a short time to get to grips with them.
	EN-1 is an overarching policy document setting out our energy planning framework for the future. It deals with our climate change commitments, and our commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. That, in turn, means the documents have to address the decarbonisation of the UK's energy supply. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy on 17 June, stating baldly:
	"The path to meeting the UK's 2050 target to reduce emissions by 80% requires that the power sector is largely decarbonised in the period to 2030 (e.g. average emissions should be about 100 g/kWh in 2030 compared to around 500 g/kWh currently)."
	I assume that the Government largely agree with the Committee on Climate Change that to meet the requirements of our climate change budgets this, or something like it, should be the scenario and that that will be reflected in the planning documents that are published. After all, if we are to achieve these goals we cannot just hope they will happen; we need to plan for them, and to achieve them through a combination of planning signals, market incentives and supply and trading arrangements.
	EN-1 states that under some of our pathways some revisions have taken the scenario beyond 2025 towards the 2050 targets. It states:
	"Under some of our 2050 pathways, energy would need to be virtually emission-free".

Tessa Munt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Infrastructure Planning Commission successor body appears to be carbon-blind in its decision making under the arrangements? The IPC successor body should give significant weight to any project's carbon emissions and ensure that cumulative emissions from the various projects do not jeopardise the UK's carbon targets and their budgets. The national policy statement should provide an additional safeguard to that process.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee report examining the previous national policy statements the Government have accepted they need to undertake some sort of spatial planning arrangement which will look at the cumulative impacts between various arrangements as they progress. She is also absolutely right that in this NPS that question of decarbonisation of supply needs to be part of the process, not anterior to it. The current level of emissions of our energy supply means that if we are to get to that position, gas at about 450 grams per kWh unabated probably will have no part to play in the energy economy by 2030-when abated, it comes in at about 100 grams per kWh.
	What are we planning? What are we looking for in these overarching documents? According to EN-1, we are planning to require a capacity of about 113 GW of installed power sources by 2025, which is a substantial increase on 2010 levels because of the penetration of wind, in particular. According to the scenario of that capacity projection, wind needs greater capacity to balance its variability. So the 113 GW, which is an increase on the about 80 GW of installed capacity that we have at the moment, will need to be installed by that point. However, 22 GW are expected to go offline, including most nuclear plants and a number of power plants, under the large plant directive and the industrial emissions directive. So 59 GW of new power will need to be built between now and 2025, one way or another.
	If we reach the renewables targets for wind, and we probably will, given the amount of wind power already in planning, we will have about 33 GW of wind power on the grid. That means that we will need 26 GW of new build non-renewables or non-wind. Of whatever type, they will, for the reasons I have outlined, need to be low-carbon or lowish-carbon. Some 8 GW are under construction and almost all that construction relates to gas. That leaves a balance of 18 GW. Some 9 GW is not under construction but has planning permission. The Government dismiss that as uncertain, but 5 GW of that relates to gas; plans for a further 7 GW are under consideration, most of which also relates to gas. So it appears that most of the current gap is set to be made up by gas. As the Select Committee has been told by the Committee on Climate Change, more gas is in the pipeline in terms of planning, permissions or build than we need for that future decarbonisation strategy to work.
	The NPS says that
	"it would be for industry to determine the exact mix of the remaining 26 GW of required new electricity capacity, acting within the strategic framework set by the Government".
	If industry decides as it appears to be deciding, it will choose gas. If it is to be gas and that gas is unabated or only partially abated, the decarbonisation of our electricity supply will not happen.

David Mowat: rose -

Alan Whitehead: I am sorry but I have to make progress because I will not get injury time for the second intervention I take.

Lindsay Hoyle: You will, Alan.

Alan Whitehead: Okay, then I will take the intervention.

David Mowat: Thank you for your help on that matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about decarbonisation, but it prompts the question: how much cost penalty would he advocate as reasonable in order for us to go down the route of a totally carbon-free mix in the way he is suggesting? Each household in the country already pays about £50 for the renewables obligation. The implication of his remarks is that the sum should be very much higher. I wonder whether he has thought about that.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed I have. I think we will find out considerably more about that in the material that will come out on energy market reform, particularly the details on what a carbon floor price will look like and what capacity payments will look like to keep the energy balance more decarbonised in future. Yes, that will add costs to the system and there need to be circumstances in which those can be abated for the public, but that is a particular issue for the energy market reform material to address.
	When the Minister was asked in the recent Energy and Climate Change Committee sitting about the gap that I have mentioned he said that it is possible that 16 GW of the 18 GW gap could be new nuclear. That represents 10 new nuclear power stations by 2025, and although that would solve the gap problem it has the unfortunate downside of being inherently implausible. The Minister may want to rectify what he said in the light of that implausibility at a future date.
	The Committee on Climate Change's estimate for the nuclear roll-out, produced in 2009, said that there would be a maximum of three nuclear power stations online by 2020, even based on optimistic build and planning time scenarios. Indeed, as we have seen, the timing of the justification process has already slipped.
	That leaves a gap that is not filled by nuclear. It is clear at the moment that there is an apparent contradiction in our national planning statements. We want to decarbonise our supply, but for 2025 we are pushing towards having a majority of gas as opposed to a small amount of peripheral gas at peaking periods, which is what our future energy supply should be based on.
	That is compounded by NPS EN-5, which attempts to collate permissions for plant and line. It will therefore replicate the question of providing grid capacity for plants as they stand and not provide new grid capacity for plants that are not yet completed and that will be needed for a decentralised and decarbonised future energy supply.
	I do not have time to go into the matter of electricity storage, but I hope that the NPSs will pay some attention to that question. It is not true that electricity cannot be stored, as NPS EN-1 says. It can be stored and storage must be a future part of our increased capacity, as the Minister mentioned in the Select Committee yesterday. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.

Richard Graham: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to this stimulating debate, which is fundamentally focused on the process of establishing the Government's important plan for the greatest increase in energy capacity and generation that we will see in our lifetimes. It is required, of course, to avoid a situation such as the one described by the line, "The lights are going out all over Europe; we may not see them lit again in our lifetimes." That phrase was used by Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the first world war, as a metaphor for the catastrophe that was enveloping our continent, but by 2014 it could be the reality of our energy situation.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on leading us towards a plan and through a process that will attract the enormous new investment of some £200 billion that is required to replace a third of all power stations in the next 10 years. I want to touch briefly on one aspect of it, which is the nuclear energy part. I am conscious that the shadow Minister said earlier that our overall energy situation was in "darn good shape" and "ready to go". If new nuclear power stations had been under starter's orders for 13 years, there must have been a terrible problem with the starter's pistol.
	Today those plans are closer to becoming reality, not least because of the contribution made by EDF and its plan for a new nuclear power station. It is worth reminding Members that EDF took over the eight existing nuclear power stations previously operated by British Energy from Barnwood in my constituency. It is also worth noting EDF's considerable investment, which will benefit people all over this country, of £20 billion towards the next new power station. That is almost twice EDF's initial investment in buying British Energy.
	With the new generation of nuclear power stations come one or two other things I want to make the House aware of. First, the Barnwood nuclear power academy is becoming the training academy for nuclear engineers not just from this country but from all over Europe, and it brings thousands of young engineers to learn their trade in the centre of England. It is also running the country's leading apprenticeship scheme, with some 400 apprentices studying on a four-year course. I am optimistic that before the Gloucestershire apprenticeship fair in February of next year, the academy will offer more apprenticeships in finance and human resources as well as in the core business of engineering on the operations side. Nuclear power is critical to the future of our energy supply and to employment opportunities in the energy sector-EDF will create some 2,000 jobs over the next 10 years. It is also important in terms of employment opportunities for our young through an ever-expanding apprenticeship scheme. That illustrates how important it is, first, to attract foreign investment to Britain; and secondly, to set up a framework and a robust plan so investors have the confidence to fulfil their part in the important new energy capabilities that the Minister is shaping us towards.
	I conclude by saying that I hugely look forward to hosting a visit by the Minister to Barnwood soon to see at first hand the enthusiasm in my constituency both for tackling the energy shortages in our country and for building new nuclear power stations. Overall, the national policy statements will contribute hugely to having a more robust process, and I will certainly vote in favour of them this evening.

Tom Greatrex: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I served for a short time on the Energy and Climate Change Committee before being moved on to other things.
	As the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), made clear in their opening remarks, the policy statements are important, and it is crucial that we have the opportunity to debate them-I hope that we will have more opportunity to debate them than the short time that is available this evening. Bearing in mind that several Government Members want to speak, I will try to curtail my remarks to less than seven minutes, if possible.
	As the Minister has said, policy statements are crucial to energy security, our capacity and our ageing plant, which needs to be replaced. As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, they are crucial to investment, which can create and sustain jobs in the industry and the supply chain-I know that many Members on both sides of the House have a definite interest in that.
	I will not repeat the issues with Sheffield Forgemasters, other than to say that it is a crying shame that opportunities to develop, nurture and create jobs and skills will be enjoyed by other parts of the world, when we are focused on trying-in the words of the Prime Minister-to "rebalance the economy".
	I want to touch on a couple of issues, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Many Members are more than aware of the huge frustration at the time it takes to move an infrastructure project from planning to building and to being ready for use-the clock is, as we all know, ticking. The previous Government looked to address that frustration through the Infrastructure Planning Commission. There are concerns that by choosing a different route-by making the IPC part of the Planning Inspectorate-the Government might be subjecting the certainty that investors need to further delays. In moving to that model, I hope that some reassurance will be given that delays will not result in investment decisions not being taken or in investment being taken elsewhere. That is absolutely crucial.
	The Minister knows from our discussions that I welcome the Government's commitment to carbon capture and storage and to the pilot project at Longannet. That is the right project, given the speed with which existing coal technology can be retrofitted and be up and running.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said in an intervention, it is also important that gas forms part of future carbon capture and storage projects. I have heard the Minister refer to that, but I would be grateful if he reaffirmed it and gave further information. Otherwise, we will miss out on technology that can be developed, tested and used in this country, which goes back to my earlier point about some of the jobs and skills that can be nurtured in this country but exported elsewhere. When the Prime Minister and others go off to China, India and other parts of the world evangelising for UK manufacturing industry, there is potential for jobs to be created in the whole of the UK, not only in one part. That can help to join up the parts of the policy agenda.
	I want to touch on some of the issues of electricity market reform. I know that I am getting a reputation for being able to bore on about transmission charging for ever, but I have about two minutes, so I will bore on about it briefly. As the Minister will be aware, there is considerable concern in some parts of the industry that investment decisions are being limited by the current transmission charging regime. Although the Ofgem review is being conducted-I welcome Ofgem's recent change in stance-we have to be absolutely clear that as the electricity markets are reformed the transmission charging regime changes too. It was designed primarily for the pre-renewables world and is not serving our interests in achieving our overall targets for reducing carbon. There is potential for that industry to develop, partly, but not entirely, in Scotland, where investors could be put off making a number of decisions on projects as a result of the current transmission charging regime.
	There has been a lot of talk about the importance of the green investment bank. The idea originated under the previous Government and has been carried forward under this Government. It is crucial that we get the model right. It has to be about levering in green investment on a certain scale if it is to have any positive impact.
	I use my last few seconds to reiterate my plea to the Secretary of State for Scotland-which he seemed to begin to agree with-that the green investment bank be based in Scotland, given the industry and the expertise that is there.

Sarah Newton: I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate. Like many MPs, I believe that the first responsibility of any Government is the security of its citizens, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Securing our energy supplies is vital for the well-being and prosperity of the people who sent us here to represent them. The failure of the previous Government to invest, despite the so-called boom years and their great appetite for spending other people's money, has led to our being far too dependent on imports to supply our national energy needs. Why? As we are discovering from so many other areas of policy that we have inherited, the reason is the previous Government's failure to fix the roof while the sun was shining. There has been a lack of coherent and consistent policy to enable the UK to have a secure energy supply.
	Like any industry, the providers of energy need a clear and timely planning process, and the national policy statements are a step in the right direction. Along with proposals that we anticipate in the localism Bill, they will create the right processes that will enable the development of sustainable and secure energy supplies for the UK. I believe that the new policies should provide an efficient and democratically accountable system, and a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need for a new energy structure in the UK. In developing that structure, the right balance must be struck between consenting to and building new energy infrastructure and the importance of protecting our environment and the quality of life for those who live in the communities where that important infrastructure is located.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wonder whether my hon. Friend might also emphasise the great importance of ensuring that energy is affordable for the poorest people in the country. There are some high-falutin' ideas that seem to add cost for consumers, and they should be opposed.

Sarah Newton: I very much agree. Far too many people in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's and mine, especially in rural areas, are living in real fuel poverty and enduring the hardship associated with high energy bills.
	In establishing the right balance between environmental protection and the need to build new infrastructure, my hon. Friend the Minister must take very seriously the points my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made about Natural England. Many of us up and down the country face the problems he described.
	I welcome in the draft statement the recognition of the important role that local authorities will play in the development and consideration of proposed major energy projects. The extent to which local authorities wish to be involved in the planning process has always been, and will continue to be, up to them, but the new regime is a significant improvement, giving local government statutory rights in the process and ensuring that its views are adequately taken into consideration. In addition, rather than imposing additional costs, there are potential savings for local government from the new regime, as shorter hearings and quicker decisions should ensure that in future local authorities do not incur the costs incurred now.
	As hon. Members will be aware, I represent a constituency in Cornwall, where we aspire to be world leaders in the new low carbon industrial revolution. As a result I have a particular interest in how the relevant parts of the NPS support the development of renewable energy. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that make us ideally situated to develop significant quantities of low carbon electricity to feed into the national grid. In the universities of Exeter and Plymouth and the Camborne school of mines, we have a world-leading knowledge base in renewable and sustainable energy. In local companies such as GeoScience and Kensa Engineering, we have pioneering and highly skilled engineering companies. The wave hub off Cornwall's north coast is the first of its kind in Europe and it enables the testing of prototype wave and tide devices. We have great light for photovoltaics, an abundance of onshore wind and the hottest rocks in the UK. What we do not have is a national grid infrastructure able to take the anticipated volumes of electricity that can be generated locally to be fed into the grid. I believe that the NPS will help to tackle that wholly unsatisfactory situation.
	Although I understand the Government's reasons for feeling that there is no urgency about including technologies such as wave and tide in the NPS until large-scale commercially viable schemes have been developed, I urge the Minister to keep them in mind for the next round and subsequent revisions and, in the meantime, to do all he can to support that sector of renewable energy generation and to keep a watching brief on how the Marine Management Organisation handles its responsibilities. He will not be surprised to hear a similar plea from me for deep geothermal energy generation, which has the potential to contribute 5% of the UK's electricity. That technology, which is tried and tested in other countries-often developed by UK engineers-is yet to receive the support it deserves from Government in this country. With my hon. Friend's assistance, I hope to reverse that.
	Given the scale of the challenge ahead, it is vital that NPS is capable of being revised and updated, so that, as we learn more about new and emerging technologies and develop an evidence base for their capacity to deliver energy into the grid and to contribute to the Government's aim of decarbonising electricity production, they are supported and given the chance that inclusion in the NPS will provide.

Andrew Percy: It is a delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who spoke about the energy potential of the hot rocks of Cornwall. I shall say something about the energy potential of the East Riding of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, which it is my privilege to represent. My rocks may be a little colder, however.
	We already contribute significantly to the energy infrastructure of this country, not least through the power stations just outside my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), at Drax and Eggborough, as well as through the coal-fired power station at Keadby in my constituency. There are also the potential opportunities that I raised with the Minister earlier with regard to offshore wind at the South Humber Gateway. I shall not mention in the presence of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend and the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, onshore wind turbines, as he and I are engaged in a number of skirmishes with various developers.
	I welcome today's debate, which has ranged much broader than simply the national policy statements. We have gone into many wider areas of energy policy. The national policy statements will contribute to putting our energy policy on a much more secure footing, which we recognise is essential if we are to attract the necessary investment to keep the lights on in this country, as other Members have mentioned.
	I shall speak about two issues associated with the potential for offshore wind. I mentioned earlier the potential for clustering the manufacturing for offshore wind at the South Humber Gateway, which has been progressing somewhat slowly through the planning system, owing to similar problems to those mentioned by other Members in relation to Natural England. In fairness to both Natural England and the developers, I should say that there has been significant movement in recent days and we may well get agreement. The planning structure is a problem for us because the developers are looking at sites not just in the UK, but internationally. Unless we get that right, we risk losing a potentially huge amount of investment, in this case to other countries in Europe.
	I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the review of overhead lines, which are another massive issue in my constituency. The national grid seems to criss-cross all over some beautiful Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire countryside. I shall follow the proceedings with interest.
	On the relationship between national policy statements and local councils, I echo some of the concerns expressed by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which said:
	"We are concerned that the current status of the NPSs within the wider planning system is, at best, ambiguous."
	I note the Government's response, which states that
	"the degree to which Government policy, including the policy in the NPS, or draft NPS, is relevant to any particular planning application . . . is not for Government to prescribe."
	They go on to say that they therefore do not believe that any additional guidance is necessary.
	I ask the Minister to reconsider that. Having served as a local councillor for 10 years, I know that it is an undeniable attraction to planning officers to look for leadership from national Government in local planning decisions. Could we have a clearer statement that the NPSs will not impact on local planning decisions and should not be used as an excuse? We saw regional spatial strategies often being drawn into planning applications, where they had no real role. The temptation is irresistible to many planning officers to look to national policy for guidance. Perhaps that can be considered in more detail when we debate national policy statements next year.
	I welcome the general direction of policy. The debate today has been interesting, with the Minister and the shadow Minister working on a consensual cross-party basis on many topics. That is significant on a subject that is so important to the country. I look forward to seeing the Minister at the South Humber Gateway shortly, and I thank him for that.

Dan Byles: I shall keep my remarks brief, as I am conscious of time.
	It is extremely important that we get energy policy right. It is right that the Department has reconsulted on it, rather than rushing ahead, as it might have done. If we get energy policy wrong, we will live with the consequences for decades to come. There is a huge infrastructure challenge. As has been mentioned, we need to replace about one third of our entire energy generating capacity in the next 10 years.
	All our nuclear power stations bar one will be off line by 2023, and we need to rebuild substantially, if not completely, our energy transmission infrastructure if we are to move towards a smart grid, which we will need to enable the 21st century energy infrastructure that we are trying to put in place to work. This huge infrastructure challenge translates into a huge investment challenge. Some £200 billion of investment is required in the coming years. To put that into context, I point out that it is approximately one third of the entire investment in energy infrastructure that the whole of Europe will require. EDF is looking at spending some £20 billion on what we hope will be the first of a new generation of nuclear power stations. That £20 billion represents the largest single investment by a French company outside France, I think ever, but certainly since the second world war. We need another nine just like that if we are to hit our £200 billion.
	At the risk of over-emphasising this issue, let me say that we absolutely have to get the investment climate right. We need to put in place a stable regulatory and investment climate that will give investors the confidence to invest staggering sums of money for 30 or 40-year timelines and beyond. The investment challenge here is probably the biggest single part of the issue that we are discussing today. I therefore strongly welcome the broad degree of cross-party consensus that we have on our emerging energy policy. Investors must have the confidence that we will not lurch from one energy policy in this country to another with potential changes of Government, but work together and put something in place that will give the confidence for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more.
	That is all I want to say. It is a plea as much to those on the Opposition Front Bench as to those on the Government Front Bench. We must ensure that we put together an investment and regulatory regime that will not change, that will be stable and give the confidence that is necessary if we are to have the investment that we need.

Tessa Munt: I will return to my favourite subject of the electricity grid, particularly as it affects Somerset, Suffolk and the other areas that have been mentioned today. Electricity networks have a significant effect on the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside, and to date the industry has been guided by a set of principles called the Holford rules in routing new overhead lines. I particularly want to note that the second draft of the NPS on electricity networks proposes to weaken the standing of the Holford rules. The latest draft says only that decision makers
	"should bear them in mind".
	That is likely to mean that there will be no requirement on either the electricity companies to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid damaging impacts on important areas of landscape, or that the decision maker should base its evaluation for proposed overhead transmission line schemes on whether the Holford rules have been met. Neither does there seem to be an expectation that the mitigation measures suggested in EN-5, at paragraph 289, should be carried out for schemes where one or more of the Holford rules are not met. The effect of this will be seriously to weaken the protection of the countryside from unnecessary or intrusive energy infrastructure.
	The other minor points that I would like to make include the wording of several sections of the NPS where minor changes of wording could have major impacts. I will write to the Minister in detail about those if I may, but certainly there are paragraphs in EN-1 that relate to the historic environment where there is weakened protection for non-designated but still important heritage assets, and there are impacts on the visual landscape that relate to the regional economy departing from existing protections for nationally designated areas such as national parks or areas of outstanding national beauty. In addition, EN-1 also seems to advise applicants on how to circumvent green belt protection.
	Finally, I cannot reflect the comments that were made earlier, and I should like to be sure that there is some way in which local authorities can negotiate a realistic contribution from developers, especially, for example, for residents in my area, which will be providing a storage facility for nuclear waste on a temporary basis that I understand to be somewhere in excess of 100 years.

Charles Hendry: We have had a good debate. It has been brief, but it is part of the process, not the end, and there will be further opportunities to discuss the issues at length when the House returns in the new year. We have had a very good mix, involving national interest and a great tour of the energy opportunities horizon in the constituencies of many Members on both sides of the House. One of the most encouraging outcomes of the debate is the recognition that, throughout the country, people are looking at how we can generate electricity in a new way. Where are the new opportunities? The hot rocks in Cornwall and the cold rocks in Yorkshire-the great opportunities that we find around us-are something that we should truly celebrate as we look at the issue.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, talked about who should take the credit, Labour Ministers or Conservative Ministers? I do not think it should be any of us, because it should be our incredibly hard-working officials, who have done almost all the work in getting us to our current position and an outstandingly good job on a very complex set of documents.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the delay. We wish that there had not been one, but we recognised that in the previous draft statement there was a flaw in the appraisal of sustainability, and we felt it right to re-interpret that in order to make it stronger and clearer. Because that was so fundamental and in the overarching national policy statement, it seemed right that we should re-consult on all the statements, and it has been absolutely the right way to take the matter forward.
	On the question of how the process will move forward, we have assumed that there will be a debate about the national policy statements overall and, at the end of the day, votes on the individual statements, but we do not anticipate the scope for hundreds of amendments to them. We have changed the previous Government's decision that there would be no vote at all, because we believe it important that, as part of this democratic process, the House should have the chance to vote on them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked also about the role of localism. There is a difference between the nationally critical strategic infrastructure, which we deal with in the national policy statements, and the local agenda, where we believe that local authorities should have significantly more power when deciding on the issues that come to them below the 50 MW. Of course, the views of local people, directly and through their local authorities, will be an integral part of individual planning applications, and they will be heard.
	I shall pick up on some of the other points that have been raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about Dungeness, and from our conversations and his consistent representations, I understand where he is coming from. We recognise that the development of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would be a continued source of employment and bring economic benefits to the surrounding area, but the Government are obliged by law to consider adverse affects on the integrity of European-protected sites which might be caused by development and to consider alternative sites if those impacts cannot be mitigated.
	Dungeness is not on the NPS, because we have not yet been persuaded that a new nuclear power station could be built there without having adverse impacts on the integrity of the Dungeness special area of conservation, or that adverse impacts could be avoided or mitigated. The Dungeness SAC is the most important shingle site in Europe, so after careful consideration of the representations made so far our view that Dungeness should be excluded has not changed. The consultation is continuing, and, if additional evidence that changes that conclusion emerges in the course of the meeting that I will have with my hon. Friend and his local authority's representatives, or in written submissions, we will take it into account.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who speaks with such authority, raises several issues, but I shall focus on the role of gas. We see a need for gas, but part of the issue is that we have inherited a situation in which new nuclear cannot be built until the end of the decade, because its construction did not start earlier. Further, when it comes to the mass roll-out of renewables, we are third from bottom in the whole EU. We have great ambition but start from a long way behind. Carbon capture and storage on a major commercial scale cannot play a massive role until the end of the decade, although our ambitions for that are high.
	Gas will therefore have to be part of the process; that is the simple, practical reality. Gas-powered stations can be built quickly; gas requires lower capital expenditure than other technologies, so the write-off period is lower; and importantly it is flexible, so it can back up other, more inherently variable technologies.
	Of course, the issue of emissions will be critical. That is why we are taking forward the work on the carbon floor price and looking at emissions performance standards and the other measures that will be brought to bear, which investors will need to take into account as they make decisions on these critical investments. The time scale of that is now almost upon us. In the next few weeks, before Christmas, we will set out how the electricity market reform process will work.
	My hon. Friends took me on a fascinating tour of the country. We heard about the nuclear opportunities in Gloucester and the great training opportunities at the Barnwood EDF facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to talk about the skills agenda and the supply chain opportunities that we are determined to realise.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) focused on energy security and the issues surrounding the wave hub and deep geothermal resources. I look forward to visiting those facilities with her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about the supply chain and his concerns about power lines, which we completely understand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) spoke about the Holford rules. We will reflect on the concerns that she expressed, but we must also have clarity about what benefit local areas will achieve from these new investments. That is at the heart of the localism Bill. Thinking about how local communities should benefit in terms of business rates and other direct benefits coming into their communities will completely transform the relationship between these facilities and the communities who host them. That will be an important element as we move forward.
	The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) speaks with great authority on these issues, and the House benefits from his expertise. He is absolutely right that time is not on our side. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to remove the barriers to new investment in these areas. We are absolutely clear that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear, but we must then remove the other potential barriers-the regulatory barriers-to ensure that that investment can go ahead. On carbon capture and storage, I can absolutely give him the assurance that we are looking to gas as part of the next projects. The market-sounding exercise showed a significant interest in gas, and we will therefore open up this competition to gas plants as well.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about EMR and the cost of transmission. We have to look at this in a new way. People will not build power plants if they do not believe that they can get their power to market. Historically, power plants were built in the coal centres or outside the big industrial centres; now, we are looking at new places for them to be built. We have to look at this afresh, and I am delighted with the work that Ofgem is doing to look at the best structure for the process. I will leave others to deal with the issue of the location of the green investment bank.
	Finally, I want to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He mentioned "what if?" scenarios. He was right to do that, but we are in that "what if?" environment because of the situation that we inherited. After 13 years, we have to get £200 billion of new investment coming into the infrastructure. If more decisions had been made to take forward the role of nuclear and not to have the five-year moratorium, we would be significantly further advanced, and the challenging energy situation in the middle of this decade would not have applied in the same way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) talked extremely clearly and effectively about the energy security needs that we have to address. It is possible that CCS may not work, or that the price may be too high, but if we do not push the process forward and take advantage of the extraordinary opportunities that we have in this country, we will always be followers and never be leaders. That is why we have been so keen to take forward that technology.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore suggested that decentralised energy may be unable to deliver as much as we hope, and he may be right. However, we are right to try to look at what can be done locally, although we are doing it against the backdrop of how much more should have been done historically. In the end, this all comes back to the broad portfolio of policies that we are putting forward-the need to have clarity on national planning issues, which is exactly what these documents are about, and the need to have clarity on the market structure that will exist.
	The hon. Gentleman talked almost as if EMR-the market reform process-was his own idea. Seven months ago, Labour Members were saying that there did not need to be a price on carbon, that there should not be an emissions performance standard, and that we did not need capacity payments. We are having to reinvent a market in order to take us forward and give us the security that we need. This is part of a package. I hope that he is in no doubt about our determination to achieve that and to drive it forward. Let me assure my hon. Friends, and all hon. Members that we totally understand everything that needs to be done to drive forward investment in this area. We will take nothing for granted. Our goal is to make this the most attractive place in the world in which to invest in new energy infrastructure. We are determined to do that and we look for consensus and partnership to take it forward. This debate has been a constructive and important part of that process. I hope we can conclude that we have had a good debate on these issues-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Official Statistics

That the draft Official Statistics Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved. -(Mr Goodwill.)
	 Question agreed to.

Libel Law

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (Mr Goodwill.)

David Davis: If the world has a capital of free speech, it is Britain. If it has a centre of free speech, it is this Chamber, as you know well, Mr Speaker. Yet in the last few years, Britain has become a watchword for something else-the use of our libel law to suppress free speech.
	This is not an esoteric philosophical issue. Free speech is the mother of freedom of thought and freedom of thought is the mother of many virtues, including integrity, individualism and creativity. That is why Britain has a vigorous and successful tradition of high culture and science, as well as of democracy. As I will demonstrate, all those virtues of British culture have been suppressed, to a greater or lesser extent, by our libel law.
	As a Parliament, we have failed to defend one of our nation's primary virtues-free speech. We have also failed in the duty to protect the weak and vulnerable from the rich and powerful. More often than not, it is the rich and powerful who use the libel laws to intimidate the less wealthy and the less powerful, as I shall demonstrate. Perhaps the best demonstration that English libel law has become a weapon of the rich and powerful is the extent to which they choose to use the English courts over any other option and over the courts of any other country. When Boris Berezovsky sued a Russian TV company, he did so not in Russia, where the deed occurred, but in England. Similarly, Roman Abramovich chose to sue an Italian newspaper not in Rome, but in London.
	In 2004, the Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, launched a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, the American author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed-and How to Stop It". The book claimed that Mahfouz financed al-Qaeda. It was not published here, but it was available online. Mahfouz brought the case not in America or Saudi Arabia, but in Britain, and the court awarded him substantial damages. As a direct result, New York law was changed to prevent British judgments applying in the US and American national law is undergoing the same change.
	Those rich men each brought their cases under the English judicial system, rather than in the appropriate forum, because English libel law is complex, clumsy, expensive and draconian. It is 140 times more expensive to defend a libel case in England than in other European nations. As a result, it favours the wealthy man who has the most financial stamina and can afford the most expensive lawyers. Although libel tourism is not the most important weakness in English libel law, it is the starkest symptom of how unfair it can be, compared with every other jurisdiction in the modern world.
	Perhaps the best domestic example of this grotesquely expensive system is the Naomi Campbell case. A newspaper wrote about her drug problem. It was sued and lost on the grounds of breach of confidentiality. Although the story was true, the legal fees alone cost more than £1 million.
	How did all that come about? English libel law was largely developed centuries ago by English judges, as an alternative to duelling to protect the honour of gentlemen. I am sure that no Member wants to see Hampstead heath littered with the bodies of dead journalists, but I am not sure how much of an improvement that new law was. It has been compounded with undoubtedly well intentioned European Union and European Court of Human Rights law, and we have ended up with dreadful unintended consequences.
	One of the most egregious consequences has been the rise of the so-called super-injunction, which bans any reporting of a case at all. The most extreme of those was the Trafigura case, which you will remember, Mr Speaker. Trafigura was accused of dumping toxic waste on the Ivory Coast, and for a while its lawyers secured a ban on the reporting even of questions in Parliament. In so doing, they overturned the absolute right to free speech fought for and won more than two centuries ago by John Wilkes. That is a suppression of free speech in this country that no one in the House should countenance or tolerate.
	There is worse yet: the crushing of free speech in science and medicine. Both those disciplines advance by conjecture and refutation, through the advancing of theories and the testing of them by experiment. Free dispute and unfettered argument are essential to that process. Yet we are witnessing, time and again, the use of English libel law by powerful commercial interests to suppress legitimate discussion of scientific fact and medical effectiveness.
	That is not entirely new. A famous member of this House, William Cobbett, was bankrupted by a lawsuit in 1797 after he pointed out that the practice of bleeding victims of yellow fever probably killed a number of them. He fled the lawsuit and the victims continued to be bled, and of course continued to die.
	In modern times, the starkest example was the thalidomide case. For some time,  The Sunday Times was prevented from publishing articles alleging negligence in the manufacture and distribution of the drug, which, as Members will remember, caused terrible deformities in the children of women who took it in pregnancy. That judgment was eventually overruled, and the law was rebalanced slightly to favour free speech in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Unfortunately, however, there are still actions by commercial companies and other vested interests to suppress criticism of medical products and practices.
	I shall give an example. Henrik Thomsen, a Danish radiologist, raised concerns that Omniscan, a drug used to enhance medical scanner images, was causing crippling pain and even death in a few patients. Despite the fact that medicine advances by a process of critical appraisal, the maker of the drug, GE Healthcare, sued him in the British courts, clearly in order to silence him. The suit has been resolved, but another medical specialist, the eminent cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, has faced similar treatment. At a cardiology conference not in Britain but in Washington DC in 2007, he criticised a product made by an American company, NMT Medical, to deal with symptoms of hole-in-the-heart syndrome. NMT sued Mr Wilmshurst not in America but in the English courts. He courageously decided to fight the case, specifically to defend free speech.
	Time and again, commercial companies take such action to silence critics. The proper, responsible, scientific way of dealing with criticism in medicine is tousb present the data and confront the argument. Using the law to silence legitimate criticism is to put shareholder interest above public health and, sometimes, public safety.
	The best known case in England, of course, is that of Simon Singh, who essentially called some of the claims of chiropractors bogus. The British Chiropractic Association sued him and, after a protracted legal battle, lost. Nevertheless, he ended up hundreds of thousands of pounds out of pocket in addition to losing two years of his life-two years of stress, anxiety and the prospect of financial ruin. A less courageous man would have buckled, and indeed most do. That, of course, is the purpose: to intimidate critics out of saying anything, or to force a humiliating retraction, effectively gagging the press from reporting such criticism.
	The tactics used are carefully refined. They are known as "lawfare" and are designed to focus the financial intimidation on the individual who is least able to bear it. The most recent demonstration of that nasty tactic would be ludicrous-bordering on the farcical-were it not so serious in its wider implications. It involves a product, elegantly called "Boob Job", sold at £125 a jar and produced by a company called Rodial. The  Daily Mail sought the advice of a leading consultant plastic surgeon, Dr Dalia Nield, of the London Clinic. As one might expect, she questioned its effectiveness and suggested that if it had the physiological effects claimed for it by its producers, it might be dangerous.
	Rodial threatened Dr Nield with legal action. It has not threatened the  Daily Mail, which carried her comments, because it has the resources to fight back, just Dr Nield, to get the maximum intimidation for the minimum risk. The proper response of any self-respecting company would be to publish the detailed composition of its product and the data supporting its claims, and engage experts to test those claims and carry out safety tests. That would be the approach of a respectable company, but I am afraid that Rodial has not taken such an approach-it has taken instead the approach of a charlatan and a bully.
	Of course, Rodial is not alone. When NMT threatened Peter Wilmshurst with a lawsuit, it did not threaten the BBC, which broadcast his comments, because the BBC can fight back. When the chiropractors sued Simon Singh, they did not sue  The Guardian, which published his comments, because  The Guardian can fight back. That is why it is called "lawfare"-it is the deployment of judicial shock tactics against the most defenceless part of the opposition. It is a disgraceful tactic, and it should not be possible under any decently balanced judicial system.
	The effect of "lawfare" is to chill free speech in science, medicine and many other areas. In this age of the internet, that chilling effect does not stop at our borders. We should remember that English is the language of science. The impact of our dysfunctional laws will become more global as more corporations come to understand what they can do to use our laws to suppress criticism.

Fiona Mactaggart: I wanted to highlight the fact that "lawfare" operates not merely in science. My constituent, Hardeep Singh, has been battling for four years in the ludicrously named case of His Holiness  v. Singh. He has been accused by a sect cult leader in the Sikh tradition of libel, and it has taken up four years of his life and thousands of pounds to defend his claim in a religious dispute that, in my view, is not able to be decided by the courts.

David Davis: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I used science and medicine to demonstrate the starker effects of "lawfare", but she has demonstrated one of the reasons why we debated the law on religious hatred: to allow unfettered discussion of religion, which is another great tradition of British democracy. I apologise to her constituent because I think of his case as Singh II, but it is just as important as the Singh case I cited, because both demonstrate only too clearly that we must get a grip on British libel law to prevent it damaging every aspect of our culture and tradition of free speech.
	That brings me to what we should do. Regrettably, there is no single, simple solution. This week is the first anniversary of the Libel Reform Campaign, which encompasses campaigning organisations such as PEN, Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and others. There are a variety of issues that we need to address.
	The cost of defending libel cases should be brought down. One step would be not to remove jury trial, but to introduce a tribunal process to deal with all but the most serious cases. The Minister might also care to tell us about his Green Paper-published a few weeks ago, I think-in which he talks about contingent fee arrangements and their possible reform, which might be another way of reducing costs. The law should focus on protecting individual reputation, without allowing heavy-handed commercial intimidation. One step towards that might be not to allow commercial companies above a certain size-in fact, really rather a small size-to bring such suits unless they can, in advance, demonstrate financial damage.
	The public interest defence-again, this is something that the hon. Lady will be interested in-is too vague and unhelpful to authors of legitimate criticism. A stronger and clearer defence than that provided by the so-called Reynolds defence should be instituted. In particular, there should be a broader definition of what constitutes fair comment. In the light of what I have said about scientific and medical concerns, such a definition should be designed to exclude scientific and medical dispute from the courts completely. There should be intelligent limits on what constitutes multiple publication. For a court case to be brought in Britain, a significant proportion-certainly more than 10%-of the publication should have been in Britain. As the House can see, there are many proposals-I have given only a short list-that need to be considered. I should like the Minister to confirm that the Government will be introducing a Bill in 2011; that he will consult Index on Censorship, PEN, Sense About Science and other campaigners before publishing it; and that the Government will correct this unintended and unwanted systemic failure in our judicial system.
	I shall finish by quoting the Appeal Court judges in the Simon Singh ruling. Speaking about the words used by Simon Singh in his criticism of the chiropractors, they said that his
	"opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced...to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth."
	The judges went on to quote Milton, writing about his visit to Italy, from 1683 to 1689:
	"I have sat among their learned men...and been counted happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan the servile condition into which learning among them was brought...that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was...I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought."
	When the judges had finished quoting Milton, they said:
	"That is a pass to which we ought not to come again."
	I say to the Minister: it is a pass that the coalition Government ought not to allow to come again. To achieve that, we need clearly thought through and thorough reform of this bad law, to put free speech back at the pinnacle of public life in Britain.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing today's debate on such an important and contemporary issue. Let me start by confirming that the Government are firmly committed to reviewing the law on defamation in order to protect free speech, and that is reflected in our coalition agreement. My noble Friend Lord McNally confirmed that commitment in July by announcing on behalf of the Government that we will publish a draft defamation Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the first Session of this Parliament, with a view to introducing a substantive Bill as soon thereafter as parliamentary time allows.
	Our core aim in reviewing the law is to ensure that responsible journalism, academic and scientific debate and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations are properly protected, and that a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is achieved, so that people who have been defamed are able to take action to protect their reputation where appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably impeded.
	Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult and sensitive exercise. It raises complex issues on which a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. In recognition of that, I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that we believe that any reform proposals will need to be the subject of extensive consultation, and that publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, together with a full public consultation, represents the most effective approach to achieving substantive provisions that focus on core issues of concern where legislation can make a real difference.
	Since Lord McNally's announcement, the Ministry of Justice held informal discussions with a range of people and organisations with an interest in defamation law to ensure that their views are taken into account. These included: non-governmental organisations and libel reform campaigners; claimant representatives and members of the legal profession; representatives of the media and the publishing industry; internet service providers and other internet-based organisations; and representatives of the science community. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that they included, as he requested, Index on Censorship, PEN and Sense About Science.
	My right hon. Friend featured the position of the science community very strongly in his remarks. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on many of the cases that he mentioned, given that proceedings are pending. I can confirm, however, that we are very much aware of the concerns about the harmful impact that the current law is having on scientific debate. The case of Simon Singh and his brave stand for his beliefs have been widely reported, and I was pleased to hear his position being clearly explained this evening by his MP, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). We want to ensure that any provisions that we introduce will help to address those concerns and enable robust scientific and academic debate to flourish without being hampered by the threat of libel proceedings.
	The discussions that we held were extremely helpful in identifying areas in which concerns exist and the possible approaches to tackling the difficulties that arise with the current law. We have also had the benefit of being able to consider the range of issues raised in the private Member's Bill on defamation that was introduced earlier in the year by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That Bill was also the subject of a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) in Westminster Hall in July this year on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he chairs. It is good to see him here this evening.
	It is not possible for me to indicate today precisely what provisions might be included in the Government's draft Bill on defamation. However, a range of issues have been the subject of much discussion and debate over recent months, and I can confirm that we are giving careful consideration to them, to assess whether it is appropriate to include provisions in the draft Bill. They include the need for a statutory defence relating to the public interest and responsible journalism. Concerns have been expressed by non-governmental organisations, the scientific community and others that there is a lack of certainty over how the common law defence established in Reynolds  v. Times Newspapers applies outside the context of mainstream journalism, and that this creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression and investigative reporting. This is a complex area of the law, and we are considering whether and how a statutory defence could be framed in a way that is beneficial and appropriate for a range of different contexts.
	We are also considering libel tourism. My right hon. Friend gave various examples of that. There is a widespread perception that the English courts have become the forum of choice for those who wish to sue for libel, and that that is having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. I have to say to him, however, that there are mixed views over the extent to which libel tourism is a real problem. Research conducted in the context of the libel working group's consideration of this issue did not show a significant number of actual cases involving foreign litigants in the High Court in 2009. However, non-governmental organisations have indicated that a major problem arises from the threat of libel proceedings by wealthy foreigners and public figures, which is used to stifle investigative journalism, regardless of whether actual cases are subsequently brought-hence the fact that the number of cases alone might not accurately reflect the extent of the problem.
	We are considering possible options carefully in reaching a decision on the way forward, including the proposal of the Ministry of Justice libel working group for procedural steps to tighten the rules and practice in order to head off inappropriate claims at the earliest possible stage, in cases where court permission is required to serve a defamation claim outside England and Wales. In doing so, we are of course keeping in mind the fact that there is relevant European legislation-in particular the Brussels I regulation-on jurisdictional matters.
	We are also considering the difficulties caused by the "multiple publication rule"-whereby each publication of defamatory material gives rise to a separate cause of action subject to its own limitation period-in relation to online material. The effect of the rule is that publishers are potentially liable for any defamatory material published by them and accessed online. That applies however long after the initial publication the material is accessed, and whether or not proceedings have already been brought in relation to the initial publication. We are considering how we could frame a single publication rule to remove the current threat of open-ended liability.
	We are also considering a range of other aspects of the law. They include the possible need for provisions on renaming and codifying the existing defences of justification and fair comment; on the basis on which an action for defamation can be brought and whether it should be necessary for claimants to show that they have suffered substantial harm; on the ability of corporations to bring defamation actions; on trial by jury; on defamation in the context of internet publication; and on issues relating to absolute and qualified privilege. There is much ground to cover
	My right hon. Friend asked about the use of super-injunctions. I can tell him that the Master of the Rolls has set up a committee to examine their use. We look forward to seeing the outcome of its work soon.
	We are pressing ahead with our work to ensure that publication of the draft Bill and the accompanying consultation paper takes place on as timely a basis as possible in the new year. As well as considering the substantive law, we are determined to ensure that costs in all civil proceedings, including defamation, are proportionate. In that context, the Secretary of State for Justice announced to the House on 15 November that the Government were consulting on proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales. We are seeking views on the implementation of a package of recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson in his "Review of Civil Litigation Costs". The Government are grateful for Sir Rupert Jackson's report, in which he argues cogently that the costs of civil litigation are too high and are often disproportionate to the sums at issue. I also accept his fundamental argument that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access to justice go hand in hand.
	The key proposal on which we are consulting is the one to abolish recoverability of success fees and "after the event" insurance premiums under conditional fee agreements. Defendants who lose their cases are currently liable for those additional costs, which are often substantial. Abolishing recoverability would mean that claimants had to pay their lawyers' success fees, and would therefore take an interest in the costs being incurred on their behalf. It is clear that if the current situation continues, and claimants continue to have no interest in the legal costs of their own lawyer if they win or in those of the defendant's lawyer if they lose, the "have a go" compensation culture can only grow.
	As well as consulting on that key proposal for reform of CFAs, we are seeking views on implementing a package of Sir Rupert's recommendations that balances measures for defendants with measures affecting claimants. They include introducing qualified one-way cost shifting, increasing general damages by 10%, strengthening part 36 arrangements, which encourage parties to make and accept reasonable offers, and allowing damages-based agreements in civil litigation, otherwise known as contingency fees. It is hoped that the proposals will result overall in more proportionate costs in all civil proceedings including defamation, while enabling those who need access to justice to obtain it. The consultation on reform of civil litigation funding and costs closes on 14 February 2011, and in due course the Government will publish a response setting out the next steps.
	I hope that I have reassured my right hon. Friend and other colleagues that we are taking focused and proportionate action that takes account of many of the issues involved. I believe that it is very important to ensure that the law achieves a fair balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, and that steps are taken to bring the cost of proceedings under control. I thank my right hon. Friend again for the valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on these issues that he has made today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.